create_synthetic_luminance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the exact calculation, the replacement of an existing view of the same name, the optional max_value cap, truncation to [0,1], and the reported median/max statistics. This is substantive but stops short of describing edge cases or error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and formula, and the second covers capping, truncation, and output reporting. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core formula, optional cap, truncation behavior, view replacement, default naming, and returned statistics. It is nearly complete; only minor details like handling of invalid dimensions or negative weights are absent, but these are inferable from the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining how ha_weight and oiii_weight combine, how max_value caps the result, and the default output name. This goes beyond the schema's field-level 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 creates a mono view from a weighted sum of Ha and OIII, with a precise formula. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools such as lrgb_combine or pixelmath_new_image, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 lrgb_combine, pixelmath_new_image, or other view-creation tools. The intended use is only implied by the formula and the tool name, not stated explicitly.

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