arcgis_pro_dataset_existsChecks if a dataset exists within permitted root paths and returns its normalized path.
在输入根策略内检查一个数据集是否存在，并返回规范化路径。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dataset_path | Yes |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the check is scoped by an 'input root policy' and that a normalized path is returned, which is real behavioral value, but the meaning of 'root policy' and the failure behavior (missing dataset, out-of-root path) are unexplained.
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 existence check is stated before the returned value.
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 explaining the return value is not strictly required, and the description's mention of a normalized path is a bonus. However, for a tool whose entire contract hinges on path resolution rules, the description omits the semantics of the root policy and the path format, leaving gaps.
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% for the single required parameter, so the description must carry the load and largely does not: it never states the expected path syntax (workspace vs. full path, relative vs. absolute), nor how the 'input root policy' constrains which values are legal.
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 and resource ('check whether a dataset exists') plus the side benefit ('return the normalized path'). It is distinguishable from siblings like arcgis_pro_dataset_schema or arcgis_pro_describe in intent, though it never names those siblings or clarifies the boundary against arcgis_pro_verify_output_dataset.
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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is a cheap pre-flight check before describe/schema/destructive operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.