concat_bands

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses automatic behaviors: reads files in sorted order, aligns mismatched CRS/resolution/dimensions. Misses potential failure modes or large data handling, but covers key automatic alignment adequately.

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?

Description is well-structured with main action, parameter list, and notes. Each sentence is informative without redundancy. Slight improvement possible by front-loading the core purpose more concisely.

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 (two parameters, automatic alignment) and existence of output schema, the description covers essential operation and constraints. Sibling tools like extract_band suggest alternatives, but the tool's behavior is well-explained for its scope.

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%, and the description provides clear parameter descriptions: folder_path as input raster directory, destination as output file. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 concatenates multiple single-band rasters into one multi-band raster, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like extract_band (opposite) and raster_algebra (mathematical operations).

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 like extract_band or tile_raster. The description mentions automatic alignment handling, which implies benefit for mismatched rasters, but lacks direct comparisons or exclusions.

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