Export Topology Errors

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results land in the GP output root and that point, line and polygon error classes are created, but it omits permission needs, whether existing outputs are overwritten, and preconditions.

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 that states the action, the destination and the reported output classes with no filler. Nothing is wasted.

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 description does cover the produced error classes. However, for a GP write tool with three fully undocumented required parameters, the definition is not complete enough to call it correctly without opening 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?

All three parameters (topology_path, output_path, output_name) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it does not. 'GP 输出根' faintly hints at output_path, but topology_path and output_name get no explanation at all, leaving the required inputs largely undefined.

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 (export) and resource (topology errors) plus the destination (GP output root) and the resulting point/line/polygon error classes. It is clear enough to distinguish from validation siblings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 explains what the tool produces but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. topology must be validated first), and no mention of alternatives such as arcgis_pro_validate_topology or arcgis_pro_gp_validate_topology.

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