stac_download_bands

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it reads COGs via HTTP, windows to bbox, stores in chuk-artifacts, handles CRS reprojection, auto-generates PNG preview. It does not explicitly mention limits or auth, but adequately covers the core behavior. Minor gap in listing potential side effects.

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 clear sections (intro, Args, Returns, Tips, Example). While somewhat verbose, every sentence adds value. The front-loading of the main purpose and tips makes it efficient. Could be slightly more concise, but clarity is excellent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all necessary context: parameter semantics, return value format, usage tips, and a concrete example. It compensates for the missing schema descriptions and output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed explanations for all six parameters, including examples for band names per satellite, bbox format, output format choices, cloud mask scope, and output mode. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Download specific bands from a scene as a GeoTIFF or PNG.' The verb 'download' and resource 'bands from a scene' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning alternatives like stac_download_rgb and stac_compute_index.

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 'Tips for LLMs' section provides explicit guidance: use stac_describe_scene first, always provide a bbox, prefer png for viewing, geotiff for analysis, and prefer sibling tools for RGB or indices. It clearly states when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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