get_foliage_in_radius

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-schema behavior: the result set is capped by max_results (default 100, hard cap 1000) and len(instances) is therefore not a valid total, pointing to get_foliage_instance_count instead. Only the return shape is left to the description since no output schema exists.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and scoped, followed by usage routing and then the cap caveat. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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 present, the description supplies the return contract itself ({ count, instances: [{location, rotation, scale, instance_index}] }) and warns that count and instances may diverge under the cap. Scope, routing, bounds and return shape are all covered.

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 100%, so all six parameters including max_results' default/cap are already documented in the schema; the description's max_results note largely repeats it. The description adds no unit or format details for radius, center_x/y/z or foliage_type_path beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('List the actual foliage instances of one FoliageType') scoped to a world-space sphere, and enumerates the returned fields (location, rotation, scale, instance_index). An agent can distinguish it from get_foliage_instance_count, get_foliage_types and has_foliage_instances without opening any 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 explicit use cases ('check what is standing on a spot before building there') and a distinct alternative ('dry run before remove_foliage_in_radius'), plus names get_foliage_instance_count as the tool for a full count. The when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else conditions are both stated.

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