get_tile_data

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe and non-mutating. The description adds scoping context by specifying it reads from a TileMapLayer node in a scene, but it does not go beyond that to describe return format, side effects, or error behavior. It is consistent with annotations, with no contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point with the verb 'Read'. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler or repetition of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the agent can expect in return. It says 'Read existing tile cells' but does not specify the format (e.g., list of cell coordinates, tile IDs). The parameters are well-covered, but the missing return details and lack of any note about prerequisites or failures leave a moderate gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter getting a clear description (projectPath, scenePath, nodePath). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for well-documented parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Read existing tile cells from a TileMapLayer node in a scene' uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource (tile cells in a TileMapLayer node). It distinguishes from sibling write tools such as set_cells by emphasizing 'existing' cells and the read action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: if an agent needs to read tile data from a TileMapLayer node, this is the tool. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, so it falls under 'implied usage' rather than clear contextual direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.