tilemap

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description is consistent with (it performs reads and writes). The description adds useful write semantics (-1/null to skip, starting at col/row) but omits persistence behavior (the save flag writing back to file) and what a 'get' returns, so it adds only moderate value over the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the get/set distinction and the write formats. No padding or repetition.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers get/set intent and the two write formats, but says nothing about the return value of a 'get' or how the frame/layer defaults interact. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description compensates well for the undocumented 'cells' and 'rows' parameters by giving their exact shapes and the -1/null skip convention. The remaining parameters (layer, sprite, frame, save, backend) are already described in the schema.

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?

States specific verbs (reads/writes) and resource (tile indices of a tilemap layer's cel), and distinguishes the 'get' vs 'set' modes. It does not differentiate from similarly-named siblings like tileset, get_cels, or update_cel, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the action enum ('get'/'set'), and the description tells the agent how to supply writes via 'cells' or 'rows'. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_cels/update_cel/tileset, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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