nasa_gibs_tile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'constructs a URL', but does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or whether the URL returns a tile image directly. The behavior is minimally transparent.

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 two sentences with no extraneous words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second provides essential context and examples. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the return value is (a URL string) and how to use it. It mentions tiles can be viewed in map clients, implying the URL is usable, but it does not specify the output structure or any required authentication. For a URL-construction tool, this is adequate but lacks some details.

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 descriptions for all five parameters. The description adds minor context (examples of common layers, date format) but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema. Hence a baseline score of 3.

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 constructs a NASA GIBS WMTS tile URL for a specific layer, date, and tile coordinate. It includes a list of common layers, which helps the agent understand the scope and distinguish this tool from unrelated siblings.

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 provides context (near-real-time and archival satellite imagery as map tiles) and states tiles can be viewed or downloaded, implying usage for map visualization. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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