compute_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the backend (TiTiler /stac/statistics) and implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is insufficient given the lack of annotations.

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, consisting of three sentences that front-load the purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, second explains expression, third mentions AOI and backend. No fluff, though the third sentence could be integrated.

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 6 parameters (3 required) and an output schema. The description covers the core functionality and some parameters, but does not explain the output structure or provide usage patterns beyond the expression example. With an output schema present, the burden is lower, but additional context on return values or pagination would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must significantly compensate. It explains the expression parameter with a concrete example and notes the aoi_geojson parameter, but does not describe other parameters like assets, catalog, item_id, or collection_id. The STAC context is implicit, but the assets parameter remains unexplained, leaving gaps.

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 computes pixel statistics (min/max/mean/std/histogram) for a STAC item, with specific mention of band math expression and optional AOI clipping. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like search_datasets or describe_collection, though not explicitly contrasting.

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 for when to use the tool (computing statistics on STAC items) and mentions optional features like expression and AOI. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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