ue_foliage_scatter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: random scattering in a circle, optional ground alignment via line trace from above, z-offset adjustment, and seed for reproducibility. However, it does not specify whether instances are added to existing foliage or replace them, nor the coordinate space for the center point.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a brief usage note, and a compact argument list. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, usage context, and parameters thoroughly. However, it leaves a few gaps: the exact format of the 'center' point (object/array) is not explained, and it doesn't mention whether the operation overwrites existing instances or is purely additive.

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 description includes an Args section that explains every parameter in plain Italian: foliage_type_path (asset path), center (circle center in cm), radius, count, seed (for reproducible results), align_to_ground (line trace from above), z_offset (adjust after placement). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and provides meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 scatters N instances randomly in a circle and places them on the ground. It uses a specific verb ('sparge' / scatters) and resource (foliage instances in a circle), and distinguishes itself from sibling `ue_foliage_add_instances` by noting that the alternative requires hand-written transforms.

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 explicitly says 'È il tool da usare per riempire una zona' (this is the tool to use to fill an area) and contrasts it with `ue_foliage_add_instances`, which requires every transform to be written by hand. This gives clear when-to-use and 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.