tilemap_get_cell

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states it is a read operation and lists the returned information, but does not mention edge-case behavior (e.g., out-of-bounds coordinates), whether it errors, or what 'alternative' means specifically. The description adds some context beyond 'read' but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb 'Read' and the resource. Every phrase contributes meaning, 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?

The tool has no annotations or output schema, and moderate complexity with 4 parameters. The description explains the core action and output fields but omits the 'layer' parameter semantics and details on the return structure (e.g., what 'alternative' represents). It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to use correctly.

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 explains x and y as grid coordinates and implies node_path is a TileMapLayer or legacy TileMap layer, but it omits the 'layer' parameter entirely and does not clarify the meaning of 'alternative' in the output. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with no schema documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and names the resource ('tile at grid x,y of a TileMapLayer or legacy TileMap layer') along with the data reported ('source, atlas coords and alternative'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write operations like tilemap_set_cell and tilemap_clear.

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 communicates that this tool reads a single tile's data, implying it is for inspection rather than modification. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like tilemap_get_used_cells or contrast with tilemap_get_info, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when this read operation is appropriate.

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