ue_foliage_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists only what is genuinely placed in the level (not assets), and describes the return content. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior, but for a simple listing tool, the disclosed scope is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds critical differentiation from a sibling tool. No wasted words, effectively structured.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), but the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what is listed (mesh, component, instance count) and the scope (level instances not asset definitions). It is complete given the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per guidelines, a description with no params gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no redundant parameter details, but its mention of the output fields helps set expectations for the tool's behavior.

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?

The description clearly states it lists foliage placed in the level, specifying the output fields (mesh, component, instance count). It explicitly contrasts with ue_list_assets for FoliageType assets, distinguishing it from a sibling tool. The verb 'Elenca' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: use this tool to see actual level foliage, not asset definitions. It names the alternative tool (ue_list_assets) for the asset-focused case, making the when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use clear.

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