landsat_bands

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read-only reference table, but does not disclose update frequency, data source, or whether results are static. Additional context would be beneficial.

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, well-structured sentence conveys all necessary information without redundancy. Every word is meaningful and earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter reference table, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (band info) and is sufficient given the Landsat context. No output schema exists, but the description covers the return content adequately.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the content (wavelengths and resolutions), which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 it is a reference table for Landsat 8/9 OLI/TIRS spectral bands, specifying the included attributes (wavelengths and resolutions). It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like landsat_search 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 use when band wavelengths or resolutions are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., spectral index tools that might need this data). No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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