pyxel-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading tilemap data and reporting specific outputs (tile grid, usage statistics, bounding box, imgsrc setting), which gives some insight into behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or performance characteristics like rate limits that would be important for a tool interacting with scripts and tilemaps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear breakdown of parameters. Every sentence earns its place by either explaining functionality or parameter usage, with no wasted words or 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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool inspects and details all parameters. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to describe return values. However, it could improve by addressing sibling tool differentiation or behavioral constraints like script execution safety.

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 provides clear explanations for all four parameters: 'script_path' as an absolute path to a .py script, 'tilemap' as an index 0-7, 'frames' as a frame number, and 'timeout' as maximum seconds. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from more context on valid script types or timeout implications.

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 with specific verbs ('inspect', 'reads', 'reports') and resources ('tilemap content, tile usage, and layout'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inspect_layout' or 'inspect_screen', which might have overlapping inspection functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'inspect_layout', 'inspect_screen', and 'inspect_sprite' available, there's no indication of what makes this tool specific to tilemaps or when to choose it over other inspection tools.

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