ase_get_tilemap_infoGet tilemap layer details such as tile size, non-empty tile count, and map dimensions in cells to validate or configure tile-based pixel art assets.
Tilemap layer info: tile size, real tile count (excluding empty tile 0), and map dimensions in cells.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer_name | Yes | ||
| sprite_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (tile size, tile count, dimensions) but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires the layer to be a tilemap layer, what happens if the layer is not a tilemap, or whether it errors on missing layers. The 'excluding empty tile 0' detail is useful but limited.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key output fields. It is efficient and avoids fluff. However, it could have used the space to add parameter context or usage guidance without becoming verbose.
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 an output schema, so return values are partially covered, but the description lacks parameter semantics, error behavior, and usage context. For a tool with two required parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully guide an agent. The 'excluding empty tile 0' detail is helpful but not 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what sprite_path or layer_name mean, what formats are expected, or how they relate to the tilemap. The description only explains the output, not the parameters. With two required parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is a significant 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 tool retrieves tilemap layer info: tile size, real tile count (excluding empty tile 0), and map dimensions in cells. It names a specific resource (tilemap layer) and the specific data returned. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like ase_get_tile_at or ase_set_tiles, but the resource and output fields are clear enough.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is a read-only inspection tool, nor does it contrast with ase_get_tile_at (which reads individual tile values) or ase_set_tiles (which writes tiles). The context is implied by the name and description but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.