extract_band

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

No annotations provided; description only states the core action without disclosing error handling (e.g., invalid band_index), overwrite behavior, or performance considerations. The behavioral impact is narrow and under-specified.

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?

Extremely concise: a one-line purpose and a three-line parameter list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

Covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks broader context: no mention of required permissions, coordinate system handling, or when to prefer this over sibling extraction tools. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but overall completeness is average.

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 description adds meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining each parameter's purpose. Notably, 'band_index' is clarified as 1-based, and 'source' supports path or URL. However, details like accepted raster formats are missing.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'extract' and the resource 'band from a multi-band raster', with the specific output format 'single-band GeoTIFF'. Unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like concat_bands or compute_ndvi.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools like concat_bands or compute_ndvi are not mentioned, and no context is provided for selecting this tool over others.

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