read_tilemap

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the inline rendering behavior and the optional render_path, but does not clarify potential file-writing side effects when render_path is used, nor the meaning of 'source bank'. It adds some behavioral context but leaves important details implied.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the main action and then adding the conditional inline behavior. It is concise, though the semicolon-heavy structure and slight repetition of 'optional rendered output' vs 'inline=true' could be streamlined.

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 output schema existshare, return-value documentation is not needed, and the description covers the tool's core purpose and inline mode. However, the required `script` parameter is unexplainedeing, and the behavior of render_path when inline=false is ambiguous. This is adequate but not complete for a 4-parameter tool with no annotation support.

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 explicitly explains the inline and render_path relationshipbell, and 'tilemap' is contextually clear. However, the required `script` parameter is not described at all, and the exact roles of `script` and `tilemap` as inputs are left to inference.

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 identifies the resource (Pyxel tilemap) and lists specific data it reads: tile coordinates, usage, bounds, source bank, and optional rendered output. This is more specific than sibling read_* tools and leaves little ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 gives a concrete usage condition: inline=true returns render as image content and makes render_path optional, which helps the agent decide between inline and path-based output. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context of reading tilemaps is clear enough.

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