reclassify_raster

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states output is saved to output_path and returns a dict with status/message, but lacks details on error handling, overwrite behavior, or performance implications. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided).

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 brief and well-structured in a standard docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative, and the purpose is front-loaded with no redundant words.

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 covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks output schema details (e.g., exact keys in the returned dict) and constraints on the mapping dictionary. Given simplicity, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 schema by explaining each parameter: raster_path (input path), reclass_map (mapping dict with example), output_path (save location). Schema coverage is 0%, so this is essential. It could be strengthened by specifying numeric key/value constraints.

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's action ('Reclassify raster values') and the method ('using a mapping dictionary'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clip_raster_with_shapefile or raster_algebra by specifying reclassification with a mapping.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as raster_algebra or resample_raster. There is no mention of prerequisites, data type constraints, or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.

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