change_vegetation

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

The description explains the computation (NDVI difference) but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects (none expected), permissions, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. With no annotations, this is insufficient disclosure for a tool that performs a computation.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the output or interpretation. No excess words.

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 required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the inputs and method but lacks details on output format (e.g., NDVI values, difference classification). It is minimally complete for a computation tool but has clear gaps.

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 already covering the inputs (NIR and red reflectance). The description adds context about NDVI but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline score 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?

Description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: vegetation change detection using NDVI from two dates. It specifies the method (NDVI) and the inputs (NIR and Red band reflectance values), making it distinct from generic change detection tools like 'change_detect' or spectral tools like '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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'change_detect', 'change_urban', 'change_water', or 'spectral_ndvi'. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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