scene-get-editable-tilemap-layer-selection-data

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a 2D array of tile IDs and that the selection is rectangular, but with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. Additional context about behavior with no selection or empty layers would improve transparency.

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 two sentences long, wastes no words, and front-loads the core action. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple getter with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return format and a key constraint (rectangular selection). It does not specify behavior when no selection exists or when the layer is empty, but overall it is sufficiently complete for typical usage.

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?

The single parameter 'sceneId' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not exceed it.

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 verb ('get'), the resource ('selected tile data of an editable tilemap layer'), and the output ('2D array with tile IDs'). It also clarifies that the selection is always rectangular, which distinguishes it from other tilemap tools that may handle arbitrary shapes or entire layers.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scene-write-editable-tilemap-layer-data or scene-fill-editable-tilemap-layer-data. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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