change_summary

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

No annotations provided; the description indicates it is a computation tool with no destructive effects. However, it does not disclose what 'overall landscape change assessment' means, nor any input constraints (e.g., reflectance format). It adequately conveys the basic behavior.

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 lists all computed indices and the dual-date nature. No unnecessary words or repetition. Perfectly concise.

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?

The description omits the output format and any prerequisites (e.g., correct band order, scaling). With 10 required parameters and no output schema, the tool's return value ('overall landscape change assessment') is vague, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 100%, with each parameter described as a band reflectance for a specific date. The description adds no new meaning beyond grouping parameters into 'two dates' and listing indices, which is already implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 computes five spectral indices (NDVI, NDWI, NDBI, NBR, BSI) from two dates and produces an overall change assessment. This distinguishes it from single-index siblings like change_vegetation or spectral_ndvi.

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 for multi-index change analysis, but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over individual index tools (e.g., spectral_ndvi) or other change tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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