view_tiled

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool renders the canvas tiled, shows seams in faint red, and is non-destructive. It does not mention permissions or limitations, but as a visualization tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The key information (what, why, how) is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values, but the tool's output is a visual rendering. It mentions pairing with other tools, adding useful context. For a straightforward render tool, this is complete enough.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning for parameters beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb+resource: 'Render the canvas repeated reps x reps so tiling seams are visible'. It specifies the output (tile boundaries in faint red) and the tool's purpose as a 'perception tool for seamless textures'. This distinguishes it from other view tools like view or view_diff.

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?

Description implies usage context: 'A tile only reads as seamless when you see it tiled' and mentions pairing with set_tile_mode and lint rule. While no explicit 'when not to use', the context is clear enough for an agent to decide to use it for checking seamless textures.

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