spectral_ndbi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the calculation, output range (-1 to 1), and interpretation (higher values = denser built-up), which is sufficient for a pure computation tool. No side effects or destructive actions are 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?

The description is concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: formula, range, use case, and interpretation. No wasted 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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the index, values, and application. Sibling tools are similar but this description sufficiently distinguishes NDBI from other spectral indices.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., typical band assignments). The tool description adds the formula context but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool calculates NDBI from SWIR and NIR band reflectance values, provides the formula, and specifies its use for mapping urban areas. This distinguishes it from sibling spectral indices like NDVI (vegetation) or NDWI (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 indicates the tool is used for mapping urban areas and built-up land, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit exclusion criteria or comparison with alternatives like spectral_ndvi (vegetation) or spectral_bsi (bare soil), though the sibling list implies differentiation.

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