get_foliage_instance_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: "one number, no transform payload" sets cost and payload expectations, and it pre-declares the return shape. It stops short of richer behavioral notes (e.g. counting cost on huge levels), keeping it at a solid 4.

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 purpose sentence, then routing/alternative guidance, then a compact return-shape summary. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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?

No output schema exists, and the description fully compensates by enumerating the returned fields. Combined with purpose, routing guidance, and alternatives, an agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 (foliage_type_path) is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that only ONE FoliageType is counted, but adds no syntax or path-format detail beyond the schema, so 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 specific verb (count), resource (instances of one FoliageType), and scope (across the level's InstancedFoliageActors). An agent can immediately tell it apart from the sibling counting/query tools without inspecting the 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?

Explicitly frames itself as "the cheapest oracle" for verifying scatter/removal results, and names the two alternatives with the exact condition that selects each: get_foliage_in_radius for WHERE, has_foliage_instances for plain yes/no. Nothing is left to inference.

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