pixelart_suggest_tilemap_layout

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the tool being a calculation that does not create or modify any canvas, and specifies the return format. It does not contradict 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then usage guidelines, then argument and return format. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 description is complete for a calculation tool. It explains inputs, outputs, and workflow dependencies (calling suggest_tile_size first, using result with create_tileset). Even with the output schema present, the description covers the return fields.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the grouping (tile_width/tile_height plus either columns/rows or screen_width/screen_height), which adds some clarity but no new semantic information beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Work out the grid (columns x rows) and total pixel size for a FULL tilemap.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like pixelart_suggest_tile_size by specifying that this tool is for entire levels/maps, not single tiles, and provides a workflow referring to other tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'whenever the user wants an actual level/map, not a single tile or asset.' It also provides a prerequisite (call pixelart_suggest_tile_size first) and two alternative input modes (explicit columns+rows or target screen size). The output usage is also described (build with pixelart_create_tileset).

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