change_urban

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the computation of NDBI and interpretation of difference. It is a safe, read-only calculation; no side effects are mentioned but none expected.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Everything is essential and front-loaded. The description is 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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains what is computed and why. It could mention the expected output (e.g., a difference value or map), but is otherwise complete for a computational tool.

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 parameter descriptions. Description adds value by explaining how the parameters (SWIR and NIR reflectances for two dates) are used to compute NDBI, which goes beyond the 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?

Description states specific verb+resource: 'Urban expansion detection using NDBI'. It clearly names the index and bands (SWIR, NIR) and distinguishes from sibling tools like change_vegetation or change_water.

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 implicitly indicates when to use: for urban expansion detection via NDBI. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear among the many spectral change tools.

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