stac_get_conformance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the internal behavior (reads conformance URIs, matches against known classes) and return format (JSON with flags and raw URIs). It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is accurately disclosed.

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 approximately 100 words, well-structured with sections (main, Args, Returns, Tips, Example). Each sentence serves a purpose—no redundancy. It is concise yet informative.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, parameters, return value, usage guidance, and provides an example. Missing details like error handling are minor; overall, it enables correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates. It enumerates allowed values for 'catalog' ('earth_search', 'planetary_computer', 'usgs'), default for 'output_mode' ('json'), and options ('text'). This adds meaning beyond the empty 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 it checks which STAC API features a catalog supports, using a specific verb ('check') and resource ('catalog's conformance URIs'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like stac_capabilities and stac_search by focusing on feature support detection.

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 explicitly states it's 'Rarely needed' and provides specific use cases (debugging, checking query support), guiding when to use and when not to. This is explicit guidance beyond typical descriptions.

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