Scene bands and files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds value by enumerating the returned content (key, band name, resolution, etc.), giving the agent a concrete picture of the output without contradicting any annotation.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the key details. It is efficient and readable, though the enumeration is slightly packed, which warrants a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value details are already covered. The description gives enough context about the tool's purpose and its relationship to find_imagery. It does not mention prerequisites explicitly, but the phrase 'found with find_imagery' implies them. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool with annotations covering safety.

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 burden falls on the description, but it only indirectly references parameters via 'one scene found with find_imagery'. It does not explain the format of 'id' or the meaning of 'collection' beyond the schema's enum. This is insufficient for a tool with two required parameters and no property descriptions.

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 action ('Lists') and the resource ('bands and files of one scene'), and explicitly ties it to find_imagery, distinguishing it from the sibling by focusing on per-scene details rather than scene discovery. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'found with find_imagery' implies the correct workflow: first locate scenes with find_imagery, then use this tool to retrieve bands/files for a specific scene. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate usage.

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