sentinel_bands

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

No annotations provided, but the description clearly indicates a read-only static reference table with no side effects. It straightforwardly describes the output content, leaving no hidden behaviors. A score of 4 reflects adequate transparency for a simple query tool.

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 a single, precise sentence that conveys all essential information without wordiness. Every word serves a purpose.

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 it is a simple reference tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (wavelengths and resolutions) and the scope (all 13 bands). It could potentially mention the format or typical use, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 the schema description coverage is 100% (empty). Thus, the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, which 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 explicitly states it is a reference table for all 13 Sentinel-2 MSI spectral bands with wavelengths and resolutions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like landsat_bands (different satellite) and other sentinel tools (which deal with imagery).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sentinel_search for imagery. The context implies it is for static band lookups, but no when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions are given.

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