has_foliage_instances

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent query, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add the important scoping constraint that results are for the 'current level' and discloses the returned fields, which adds value 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?

The core answer is front-loaded and the alternative-routing sentence is well placed. The prose is slightly chatty and the return-shape line is a bit listy, but nothing is wasted.

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 correctly supplies the return shape (has_instances, instance_count, foliage_type_path). Combined with the scope constraint and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 a description ('Asset path of the UFoliageType to query'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 specific verb/resource ('does this FoliageType have any instances placed in the current level') and a yes/no gate framing. It explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings, foliage_type_exists and get_foliage_in_radius, so an agent can pick it 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?

Names the exact condition for use ('the one-line gate for is this vegetation actually in the map') and contrasts it against the two nearest alternatives, clarifying that foliage_type_exists asks about asset existence and get_foliage_in_radius asks where instances are. This is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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