foliage_type_exists

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it validates both existence AND that the asset loads, and flags itself as a 'cheap' check. It stops short of stating failure behavior (e.g. what happens on a bad path) but goes beyond 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?

Front-loaded with the core question, followed by usage context, sibling disambiguation, and the return shape in a compact block. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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, the description supplies the return shape ({ exists, asset_path }), which is exactly the missing piece. Combined with its usage and scope notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100% and the single parameter already carries an example path, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description implies the input is an asset path but adds no format, syntax, or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a precise yes/no question ('does this FoliageType asset path exist and load'), naming both verb and resource. It explicitly separates itself from the sibling has_foliage_instances by clarifying it asks about the ASSET only, so an agent can disambiguate without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance ('cheap precondition check before a create/scatter/tune call') and the motivating failure mode (a path typo fails here instead of deep inside another tool). It also names the alternative tool and the different question that routes to it, covering both when-to-use and when-not.

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