arcgis_pro_gp_get_raster_propertyRetrieve a specific property from a raster dataset in ArcGIS Pro by providing the raster path and property type, returning structured results.
ArcGIS Pro：读取栅格。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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| raster_path | Yes | ||
| property_type | 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds a small amount of context: it says results are verifiable and structured, and that write/path limits depend on service capabilities. However, it does not clarify what property types are available, error behavior, or permission requirements, so the added value is modest.
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 only one short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with two required parameters and no schema documentation. It is front-loaded but sacrifices necessary detail.
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?
Even though an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is incomplete for an agent to call this tool correctly. It leaves the property_type parameter, valid property values, and usage relative to similar raster tools 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% and the description does not mention either required parameter. It gives no meaning for property_type or raster_path beyond what the bare parameter names imply, so it fails 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 says 'read raster' but the tool is specifically 'get raster property'; it omits the property aspect entirely. This makes it vague and potentially misleading, and it does not distinguish the tool from the many raster-related siblings like arcgis_pro_raster_info or arcgis_pro_gp_get_cell_value.
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 only usage-related sentence is 'write and path restrictions subject to service capabilities,' which is a generic caveat rather than guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no indication of when to choose this over sibling tools such as arcgis_pro_raster_info or arcgis_pro_list_rasters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.