get_tile_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns information (a read operation) and covers 'all available tile types,' indicating comprehensiveness. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors. It adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second clarifies the return value. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, earning its place by efficiently conveying essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., caching or performance notes) to reach a 5.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the reference guide for VibeTide tile types' specifies the verb (get) and resource (reference guide for tile types). It distinguishes from siblings like 'edit_level_tile' or 'view_level' by focusing on reference information rather than level manipulation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 context through 'reference guide' and 'information about all available tile types and their properties,' suggesting this is for lookup/learning rather than editing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'view_level' (which might show tiles in context) or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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