Tilesets

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

With minimal annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint false), the description carries the burden and largely meets it: it discloses mutating operations (create_layer, stamp, pack, export) and reveals output side effects such as produced files (Tiled .tsj, Godot .tres, JSON, packed PNG). It does not explicitly mention file overwriting or undo implications, but the operational effects are clear enough for an agent.

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 two dense sentences, front-loaded with the tilemap-layer scope and then enumerating operations efficiently. There is no fluff, though the packed operation list would benefit from slight structural separation for readability. Every sentence earns its place.

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 12-parameter, 6-operation tool, the description gives a solid overview of available operations, outputs, and the preflight prerequisite. The presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations. It lacks a per-op parameter matrix, but the combination of op parentheticals, schema field descriptions, and preflight guidance is sufficient for initial correct usage.

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 moderate at 58%, and the description adds operation-level meaning (e.g., what each op achieves) rather than parameter-level syntax. It does not elaborate on undocumented parameters such as 'name', 'tileWidth', or 'tileHeight', and per-op required-parameter combinations are left implicit. This aligns with a baseline score of 3: helpful but not comprehensive.

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 explicitly identifies the resource (Aseprite tilemap layers) and lists six specific operations with clarifying parentheticals: 'get' returns a packed image plus indices, 'stamp' places tiles by grid coordinate, 'pack' deduplicates a mockup, and 'export' writes Tiled/Godot/JSON formats. This scope clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'layer' or 'export' by focusing on tilemap-specific workflows.

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 states the tool is for tilemap layers and adds a concrete prerequisite: it requires an extension build advertising the 'tileset' feature and advises checking preflight first. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the tilemap-layer scope provides clear contextual boundaries.

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