inspect_tilemaps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It implies a read-only inspection but does not disclose what data is returned, whether it recursively inspects nested nodes, or whether any side effects occur.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It could benefit from more detail, but as far as structure and brevity it is appropriate for a tool of this narrow scope.

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 and no annotations, so the description must explain the tool's behavior and return value, but it does not. At minimum, it could indicate what kind of inspection results are returned, making the description incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 only 50% (scenePath is undocumented), and the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions 'in a scene' but does not map this to scenePath or explain the optional projectPath beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and names exact resource types ('TileMap and TileMapLayer nodes'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like inspect_scene_tree and inspect_node by narrowing the scope to tilemap-specific nodes.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_node or inspect_scene_tree. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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