arcgis_pro_gp_krigingInterpolates a raster surface from point features using kriging geostatistics in ArcGIS Pro to predict values at unmeasured locations.
ArcGIS Pro：kriginggp kriging。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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| z_field | Yes | ||
| cell_size | No | ||
| out_raster | Yes | ||
| in_point_features | 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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's only added claim is that results are 'structured and verifiable' and that write/path restrictions depend on service capability — a vague, unactionable statement that does not disclose what is created, whether output overwrites existing rasters, 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?
It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency: the phrase 'kriginggp kriging' is a mangled duplication of the name, and the remaining clause is boilerplate that applies to any tool in this server.
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 explained, but for a geoprocessing tool with three required inputs and 0% schema documentation, the definition omits everything an agent needs: input formats, parameter meaning, and any usage context.
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 mentions none of the four parameters (in_point_features, z_field, out_raster, cell_size). With three required parameters and no field-level documentation anywhere, the description fails entirely to compensate.
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 essentially restates the tool name ('kriginggp kriging') with no verb+resource framing that explains what kriging does or how it differs from sibling interpolation tools like arcgis_pro_gp_idw or arcgis_pro_gp_kernel_density. A reader learns only that it is an ArcGIS Pro kriging GP tool, which the name and title already convey.
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, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative-tool guidance is given. With ~40 sibling interpolation/geoprocessing tools (idw, kernel_density, point_density), the agent gets zero help choosing this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.