nasa_epic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'views of Earth' but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format is (e.g., images, metadata), or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with parameters.

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 very concise with a single phrase, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary details for clarity and usage. Every word earns its place, but the description is too brief to be fully helpful.

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 has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., image URLs, metadata), how to interpret results, or any behavioral aspects. For a data retrieval tool with parameters, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents the two parameters ('collection' and 'date'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining valid collection types or date ranges. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera - views of Earth' identifies the resource (Earth imagery from EPIC) but lacks a specific action verb. It distinguishes from siblings like 'nasa_apod' or 'nasa_images' by specifying the EPIC source, but the purpose remains vague without stating what the tool does (e.g., retrieve, list, or display images).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'nasa_images' or 'nasa_gibs' that might also provide Earth imagery. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit instructions.

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