Gp Split By Attributes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's only behavioral claim is a generic 'write and path restrictions follow service capability' note, which does not specify what gets written, where output lands, or what happens with invalid workspaces. No contradiction with annotations, but negligible added value.

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 brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight writing. The bilingual duplication ('splitgp split by attributes') wastes the only sentence available and pushes no actionable content to the front.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 3-parameter required geoprocessing tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without any information needed to invoke it correctly, which is a significant completeness gap.

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 there are three required parameters (in_table, target_workspace, split_fields). The description provides no meaning for any of them: it does not explain that split_fields drives the grouping, what format target_workspace expects, or what table types are accepted. The burden was entirely on the description here and it fails.

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 ('splitgp split by attributes') in mixed Chinese/English without adding a specific verb-plus-resource statement of intent. It does not distinguish this tool from the dozens of sibling geoprocessing tools such as gp_frequency, gp_dissolve, or gp_table_select, so an agent cannot tell what makes this operation unique.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only clause ('write and path restrictions per service capability') is a vague disclaimer rather than routing information. An agent learns nothing about when to choose this over another splitting or aggregation tool.

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