extract_point_timeseries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the extraction method (nearest-pixel), temporal resolution (monthly), and output format. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, error handling, or explicit file existence prerequisites beyond 'downloaded', leaving some gaps in side-effect transparency.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a purposeful reference to the downstream skill. Every sentence contributes, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 description, combined with the high schema coverage and presence of an output schema, gives sufficient context for correct usage. It explains the exact CSV format and ties to the calculate-smi skill. Minor gaps like multi-variable handling are already addressed by the schema's optional variable parameter and examples.

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 schema has 100% coverage for all parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the output columns and nearest-pixel selection, but it does not elaborate on parameter specifics beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, minimal added value over the schema.

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 a specific action (extracts nearest-pixel monthly time series) and a specific output (CSV with columns year,month,date,<variable>). It distinguishes itself from sibling fetch/inspect tools by operating on a downloaded NetCDF file and producing a CSV, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 it should be used after a NetCDF file is downloaded and its output is intended for the calculate-smi skill. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but given the sibling tools are fetching or inspecting, the context is clear. It lacks direct alternative naming but provides sufficient contextual workflow guidance.

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