extract_pseudo_oiii

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently warns that any existing view of the target name is replaced, explains the clipping behavior, and states that median and max are reported. It does not state whether the source view remains untouched, but the creation semantics imply it.

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?

Three short sentences: the first states the action, the second gives the formula and destruction warning, and the third states what is returned. There is no filler and no unnecessary restatement of the schema.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the algorithm, the destructive side effect, and the returned statistics. The only missing context is a prerequisite that the source view be a valid RGB view, which is lightly implied by the schema parameter description.

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. The description adds meaning by tying continuum_factor to the formula, clarifying output_id replacement when the view already exists, and explaining that the result is mono and clipped, which goes beyond the raw parameter names.

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 names a specific operation ('Create a mono view'), gives the exact formula (max(0, B - continuum_factor * R)), and states the output type. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like continuum_subtract_ha, but the B-minus-scaled-R formula makes the intent clear.

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 gives a clear algorithm and result, so the use case (extracting pseudo-OIII from an RGB view) is inferable. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as continuum_subtract_ha or dynamic_narrowband_blend, so explicit routing guidance is missing.

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