tilemap_get_used_cells

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'capped at max_count' behavior and covers both TileMapLayer and legacy TileMap nodes. However, it does not mention error handling, ordering, or what happens when max_count is exceeded beyond truncation, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 with no fluff. Every word adds value, including the output format and the cap behavior, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so vaguely with 'grid x,y with source_id', but does not specify the exact data structure (e.g., array of objects) or handling of empty results. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is minimally viable but leaves room for more detail.

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 max_count ('capped at max_count') and implicitly clarifies node_path by referring to tilemap layer types, but it does not explain the 'layer' parameter (e.g., that it is an index within the TileMap). This leaves a significant parameter unexplained.

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 'List' and the specific resource 'used cells of a TileMapLayer or legacy TileMap layer'. It also specifies the output format as 'grid x,y with source_id', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tilemap_get_cell that handle 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving all used cells from a tilemap, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tilemap_get_cell or tilemap_get_info. It provides no 'when not to use' guidance or naming of alternatives.

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