tilemap_get_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It uses 'Get', implying a read-only operation, and constrains the accepted node types ('TileMapLayer or legacy TileMap'). However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any side effects. It adds useful context but lacks details about what happens on invalid input or the structure of the returned data.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'Get' and immediately enumerates the data items. It contains no fluff or redundant phrasing, making every word meaningful.

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 is a simple getter with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema. The description lists the conceptual data returned, but it does not describe the return structure (e.g., dictionary keys, types). It also omits error scenarios and any behavior differences between TileMapLayer and legacy TileMap. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more detail is needed for full completeness.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the 'node_path' parameter. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description does not confirm that node_path must reference a TileMapLayer or legacy TileMap node. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field name, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('TileMapLayer or legacy TileMap'), and lists exactly what information is retrieved (layers, used cell counts, TileSet sources, tile size in pixels). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tilemap_get_cell and tilemap_get_used_cells, which focus on individual cells.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many other tilemap-related tools (e.g., tilemap_get_cell, tilemap_get_used_cells). The description implies a getter for metadata but does not explicitly state 'use this when you need tilemap-level info' or mention alternatives. No exclusions or context for selection are provided.

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