ue_foliage_query

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the limit behavior (max transforms returned, but total count always exact), which is useful. However, it doesn't clarify whether the operation is read-only, potential error conditions, or the exact return structure, leaving gaps.

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 description is concise and front-loaded: a short purpose statement followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.

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 description covers the main intent and all parameters, but because there is no output schema, it does not detail the structure of the returned transforms or handle edge cases like missing foliage types or empty results. This leaves some context incomplete.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section adds important meaning: units for center and radius (cm), and the semantic of limit (maximum transforms, total count exact). It enriches most parameters, though the format for 'center' (array vs object) is not specified.

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 the tool's function: it returns foliage instances of a FoliageType inside a sphere, including their transforms. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like ue_foliage_list or ue_foliage_add_instances.

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 implies usage by defining a spherical query scope, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It gives parameter context but no direct alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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