arcgis_pro_gp_bufferGenerate buffer polygons around input features using a distance value or field, and save them to an output feature class in a controlled GIS environment.
ArcGIS Pro：buffergp buffer。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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| in_features | Yes | ||
| out_feature_class | Yes | ||
| buffer_distance_or_field | 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=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, establishing that this is a potentially writing but non-destructive, repeatable operation. The description adds only generic boilerplate about returning verifiable structured results and write/path restrictions being service-dependent, which offers marginal extra context without detailing what gets created or what permissions are needed.
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 brief (two sentences) but consists of boilerplate that does not earn its place. It is under-specified rather than meaningfully concise, and the mixed-language phrasing adds no clarity.
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 geoprocessing tool with three required parameters, an output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description provides nothing to help an agent invoke it correctly. It omits input/output semantics, environment requirements, and any distinction from sibling 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?
Three required parameters with 0% schema description coverage receive no explanation in the description. The agent gains no meaning for in_features, out_feature_class, or buffer_distance_or_field beyond the bare 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 is essentially 'ArcGIS Pro：buffergp buffer', which restates the tool name and title rather than specifying the operation, input types, or output. It does not differentiate from sibling buffer tools such as arcgis_pro_gp_multiple_ring_buffer, leaving the agent to infer purpose solely from the tool name.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The agent cannot tell from the description when to choose this buffer tool over related proximity or overlay siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.