Ase Get Tile At

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and the 0 = empty sentinel, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention what happens for out-of-bounds coordinates, which layer/frame is used, or whether the returned value is a tile ID or index. These are meaningful behavioral gaps for a grid-read 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and the key sentinel value. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It doesn't clarify coordinate systems, frame indexing, or error behavior, and it doesn't explain the output schema's meaning. For a read tool with zero schema description coverage, more context is needed.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the return value (0 = empty) and not the parameters. The schema provides names and types but no semantics for col/row (0-based vs 1-based), frame (1-based default), layer_name, or sprite_path. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Read which tile occupies a grid cell (0 = empty)' clearly states a specific verb (read), resource (tile at a grid cell), and the meaning of the 0 value. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ase_set_tiles (write operation) and ase_draw_on_tile (drawing), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 a read-only inspection use case ('Read which tile occupies a grid cell'), which is enough to infer when to use it versus a write tool like ase_set_tiles. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over ase_get_tilemap_info or ase_draw_on_tile, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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