Get tileset info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses rich return content (sheet/image mapping, autotile kinds, passability grid with an inline legend of o/x/*/p) and clarifies the overview-vs-detail behavior. It does not cover failure modes for an invalid tilesetId or confirm read-only semantics explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then layers mode selection, legend, and alternatives. Every sentence carries information, though the run-on structure could be broken into clearer clauses for faster parsing.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does substantial work by describing the shape of the returned information and decoding the passability grid. It is nearly complete for a read tool, with only output container/format and error behavior left unspecified.

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 coverage is 67%, and `tileIds` has no schema description, so the description's note that 'tileIds decodes passability and terrain flags for specific tile ids' fills a real gap. It also explains that omitting `sheet` returns an overview while passing it selects one sheet, and defines the passability legend for A5/B-E. It omits limit and range details (max 100 ids, 0-8191), keeping it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Describe a tileset') and enumerates what it returns: sheet-to-image assignment (A1-A5, B-E), tile id ranges, and autotile kinds with type, position and passability. It also names the sibling get_tileset_image, so an agent can distinguish the two tools without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly frames the two modes: 'Without `sheet` you get an overview; pass `sheet` for the detail of one sheet', and routes visual inspection to get_tileset_image and per-tile flag decoding to `tileIds`. When-to-use and alternatives are both named.

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