get_tile_at

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

The description clearly indicates this is a read-only operation ('Read') and specifies the return format. It lacks explicit statements about side effects (none) or error conditions, but the read behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 one sentence followed by a clear parameter list. No redundant information. Front-loads the purpose. Every part adds value.

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 description covers the return format (JSON with tile_index) and explains the special meaning of 0. With no output schema, this is helpful. However, edge cases (out-of-range, missing layer) are not addressed, though for a simple read it's nearly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential meaning for all 5 parameters, including file type, layer context, frame index starting at 1, and 0-based coordinates. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the action (read) and resource (tile at a grid position). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'draw_on_tile' (modifies) and 'get_tilemap_info' (overview) by specifying it reads a single tile.

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 use when needing to inspect a tile at a specific coordinate, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tilemap_info' or 'draw_on_tile'. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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