get_tile_at

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

With no annotations, the description's main behavioral disclosure is the word 'read', which signals a non-mutating operation. It does not cover out-of-bounds coordinates, empty tiles, or missing frames/layers, but it does accurately convey the basic side-effect-free nature of the tool.

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?

One sentence with no filler; it states what is read and where. The description is appropriately small for a simple getter and loses no points for being brief because it says the essentials.

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 core purpose is conveyed in enough detail to guess the correct call, but with five required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves return type, coordinate bounds, and error behavior implicit. This is serviceable but minimal.

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 0%, and the description only adds the phrase 'grid coordinate' to clarify col/row. It does not explain the role of filename, layer_name, or frame_index, nor the indexing convention, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 names the operation ('read'), the object ('tile index'), and the location ('tilemap grid coordinate'), so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like set_tiles or get_tilemap_info, but the read verb makes the distinction fairly obvious.

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 intended use is implied: use it to read a tile index from a grid coordinate. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, which leaves an agent to infer how it fits among the many tilemap-related siblings.

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