get_foliage_types

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the empty-result semantics ('Nothing here means nothing has been placed, even if the FoliageType assets exist in Content'), which is a non-obvious distinction. It stops short of covering cost or scale limits, keeping it at 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 with the core action, then the contrast, then the caveat — a logical order with no filler. The parenthetical framing sentence is slightly decorative but still carries the level-vs-asset distinction, so it 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape (foliage_types, foliage_type_count, foliage_actor_count), and purpose plus usage routing are fully covered. Nothing an agent needs to call this zero-parameter read tool is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The return-object listing is disclosed but that falls under output, not parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb ('List') + precise resource ('every FoliageType actually present in the level's InstancedFoliageActors') plus the instance counts returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_foliage_type_properties, so an agent can separate the two without opening a 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?

Names the sibling it replaces (get_foliage_type_properties, which describes a single asset) and states the selecting condition (level-side inventory: what vegetation is in the map). It further clarifies the empty-result case, removing ambiguity about when the tool is the right call.

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