compute_ndvi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states a read-compute-write operation but does not mention file overwrite behavior, required CRS, or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a clear bullet list for parameters. Every part serves a purpose, no wasted words, and well-structured for quick scanning.

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 is simple with 4 parameters and an output schema, so the description covers basics. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., overwrite, errors) and usage guidance, making it minimally adequate for a standalone read.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: clarifying that band indices are 1-based and that destination is an output path. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though more formatting details would improve it.

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 NDVI and saves to GeoTIFF, using a specific verb ('Compute') and resource (NDVI). However, it does not differentiate from similar tools like raster_algebra, which could also compute indices, lacking sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like raster_algebra or concat_bands. It implies basic usage but offers no context for selection among many similar raster tools.

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