create_tileset

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool creates a tileset with specified terrain types and outputs seamless tiles (16-23). It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing tilesets or required permissions, but the creation nature and output count are clearly communicated. Slightly lacking in deeper behavioral context but still good.

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?

Three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, output, and usage alternatives. Front-loaded with the core action, then context and sibling differentiation. No wasted words.

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 (20 parameters, 3 required) and lack of output schema, the description provides essential high-level context but does not explain parameter interactions or detailed behavior. However, the schema is comprehensive, and the description covers the key differentiators. Just shy of complete for a complex creative tool.

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 100%, meaning the schema already describes all 20 parameters. The description only reiterates tile_size options (16x16 or 32x32) and provides examples for lower_description and upper_description, which are already in the schema. No new parameter meaning is added, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool creates a top-down tileset with base terrain, elevated terrain, and transitions, specifying tile sizes 16x16 or 32x32 and output of 16-23 seamless tiles. It distinguishes from siblings by directing users to create_tileset_sidescroller for platformers and create_isometric_tile or create_tiles_pro for isometric, showing clear resource and verb specificity.

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 clearly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this for RPG/strategy maps.' It also explicitly states alternatives for different game styles: 'For platformer/sidescroller games use create_tileset_sidescroller. For isometric games use create_isometric_tile or create_tiles_pro.' This provides comprehensive usage guidance.

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