stac_pairs_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds behavioral detail: it renders a two-layer map with toggling capability for comparing coverage. This goes beyond the annotation by specifying visual behavior and interaction, without contradicting the read-only nature.

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 exceptionally concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key details (colors, layer toggling). Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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 low complexity (visualization only), the description is largely complete for an agent to understand its role and basic usage. It could be improved by noting parameter formats (e.g., comma-separated IDs) or the basemap default, but such details are secondary for map generation purposes.

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 must compensate. It indirectly explains that before_scene_ids and after_scene_ids come from stac_find_pairs, but does not describe valid formats, constraints, or the basemap parameter's possible values. The meaning is partially inferred from the tool name and context, but explicit parameter guidance is missing.

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 visualizes before/after scene pairs from stac_find_pairs as a two-layer map with specific colors (blue=before, red=after) and action (toggle layers to compare). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like stac_map (general map) and stac_find_pairs (search).

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 after stac_find_pairs by referencing scene pairs from that tool. It explains the map's purpose and layer comparison, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools are listed elsewhere.

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