Calculate Distance Band

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: it does not create a dataset ('不创建数据集'), telling the agent this is a value-returning computation rather than a data-producing tool. It does not disclose units, distance-method effects, or any limits.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key computation leads and the non-output caveat follows. Efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the non-dataset note is helpful. But with 0% parameter coverage and no usage context, the definition is only minimally sufficient for a geoprocessing analysis tool an agent must invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are 4 parameters. The description clarifies number_of_neighbors (the required neighbor count that defines the threshold) and implies in_features ('每个要素'), but says nothing about distance_method (default EUCLIDEAN_DISTANCE) or environment, leaving half the params undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('计算...距离阈值' / calculate the distance threshold) and scopes it precisely: the threshold where each feature has at least the specified number of neighbors. It does not name or contrast any sibling (e.g. generate_spatial_weights_matrix, average_nearest_neighbor), so an agent cannot disambiguate among the many analysis tools from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description only says what is computed, not when an agent should pick this over the neighboring spatial-statistics tools.

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