arcgis_pro_da_table_sampleSample rows from an ArcGIS Pro table by specifying dataset path, fields, optional WHERE clause, and row limit. Returns structured records for inspection.
ArcGIS Pro：table表。返回可验证的结构化结果；写入和路径限制以服务能力为准。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | ||
| max_rows | No | ||
| dataset_path | Yes | ||
| where_clause | No | ||
| include_shape_wkt | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only vague statements about verifiable structured results and service-dependent write/path limits, without explaining sampling behavior, max_rows handling, or return shape. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 short, but it is under-specified rather than informative. Its two clauses do not earn their place because they add neither actionable purpose nor parameter meaning.
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?
Although an output schema and annotations exist, the description is still incomplete for a 5-parameter sampling tool. It omits what is sampled, how fields/max_rows/where_clause shape the result, and how it relates to adjacent table-query tools.
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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It does not clarify dataset_path, fields, max_rows, where_clause, or include_shape_wkt, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 only identifies the tool as an ArcGIS Pro table operation and adds a generic statement about structured results. It never says that this tool samples rows, nor does it distinguish the behavior from siblings such as arcgis_pro_da_query_rows or arcgis_pro_table_properties.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, what alternatives exist, or under what conditions sampling is preferable to querying, describing, or listing fields. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.