stac_describe_collection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It describes the return content for known collections (rich metadata) and unknown collections (live STAC metadata). It also mentions the output_mode parameter and warns about cloud_mask_band being None for non-optical collections. This is transparent about what the tool does and does not do.

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 well-structured with a clear first line, bullet-like list of returns, then sections for Args, Returns, and Tips. Every sentence adds value—there is no verbosity or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively elaborates.

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?

Despite having no output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers what an agent needs: expected return content (band details, composites, indices, guidance), handling of unknown collections, parameter options, and integration tips with sibling tools (e.g., stac_download_bands). It also addresses an edge case (cloud_mask_band None). This is comprehensive for the tool's relatively simple role.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by listing each parameter with its options (e.g., collection_id options: sentinel-2-l2a, landsat-c2-l2, etc.; catalog options: earth_search, planetary_computer, usgs; output_mode options: json or text). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic type/required information.

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 begins with a clear statement of purpose: 'Get detailed information about a STAC collection.' It specifies what is returned (band wavelengths, composites, spectral indices, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on collections (vs. scenes or listings). The verb 'describe' and object 'collection' are specific and unambiguous.

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 includes a 'Tips for LLMs' section that explicitly recommends calling this tool before using stac_download_bands, and advises checking cloud_mask_band for non-optical collections. This provides clear usage context but does not directly compare with alternative sibling tools (e.g., stac_search or stac_list_collections) nor state when not to use it.

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