Gp Extract By Attributes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds only vague statements about 'verifiable structured results' and service-dependent write/path limits, without saying what is created, where outputs go, or what happens on invalid where-clauses.

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 text is short and front-loaded, which is good, but two of its three clauses are content-free boilerplate that does not earn its place relative to the tool's purpose.

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 required-parameter geoprocessing tool with zero schema documentation and no annotation details about output behavior, the description is far too thin; an output schema exists, but input semantics, prerequisites and side effects remain entirely unexplained.

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 three required parameters (in_raster, where_clause, out_raster), and the description provides no information about any of them – not the SQL syntax expected for where_clause, nor raster path format, nor output format. The description does nothing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 largely restates the tool name ('extractgp extract by attributes') and its title, giving only the generic verb+resource pair without stating what extraction means here or how it differs from the closely related sibling arcgis_pro_gp_extract_by_mask.

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 at all. The clause '写入和路径限制以服务能力为准' (write/path restrictions depend on service capability) is boilerplate that gives no condition for selecting this tool over extract_by_mask or raster_calculator.

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