List tileset slots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses what the response contains (image bound to each slot, first tile id per slot), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about read-only safety, behavior on an unknown tilesetId, or whether missing slots are reported.

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?

One tight sentence with the outcome front-loaded and the rationale trailing; nothing is wasted. It is perhaps slightly under-specified rather than over-long, but structurally sound.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the minimum by sketching the return content, but it leaves the sole parameter undocumented and omits error/edge behavior. Adequate for a simple read, but not complete.

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?

There is one required parameter, tilesetId, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it — no mention of valid id ranges, how to discover an id, or what an invalid id does. The single sentence about slots does not compensate for the undocumented input.

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?

Names a specific verb (Show) and resource (tileset slot bindings A1-A5/B-E) plus the returned datum (first tile id per slot). It is clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from the closest sibling describe_tiles, which likely also reports tile information.

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 clause 'so tile ids can be chosen without guessing' implies the use case (resolving tile ids before set_tiles or place_event), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of how this differs from describe_tiles or list_maps. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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