arcgis_pro_gp_raster_calculatorCalculate raster outputs in ArcGIS Pro from map algebra expressions, writing results to a specified raster path with optional input raster mappings.
ArcGIS Pro：raster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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| expression | Yes | ||
| out_raster | Yes | ||
| input_rasters | No |
| 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only a generic boilerplate caveat that write and path restrictions depend on service capabilities, without specifics such as overwrite behavior, required permissions, or output handling.
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 short but not usefully front-loaded. Its two generic clauses do not earn their place because they fail to state the tool's purpose or parameters.
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 raster calculator with two required parameters and an optional input raster mapping, the description omits all operational and parameter context. Although an output schema exists, the definition is still far too incomplete for correct invocation.
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 parameters. The description does not explain expression, out_raster, or input_rasters, so it provides no meaning beyond the bare schema 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 does not state what the tool does. It repeats only 'raster栅格' and a generic claim about structured results, never mentioning expression evaluation, raster calculation, or output raster creation.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arcgis_pro_gp_run_tool or other raster geoprocessing siblings. The service capability remark is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.