arcgis_pro_make_feature_layerCreate a feature layer from a dataset path and output layer name, optionally filtering features with a WHERE clause, to prepare data for mapping and analysis in ArcGIS Pro.
ArcGIS Pro：创建要素。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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| dataset_path | Yes | ||
| where_clause | No | ||
| out_layer_name | 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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds only generic claims about verifiable structured results and write/path limits depending on service capabilities; it does not say what object is created, whether it persists, or what errors/limitations apply.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, so it is not verbose. However, the second sentence is generic boilerplate and the first is imprecise, so brevity is not buying useful information.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover basic safety traits. But with three undocumented parameters and many layer-creation siblings, the description omits essential context about input dataset handling, the where clause, and what the output layer represents.
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 all three parameters, and the description provides no meaning for dataset_path, out_layer_name, or where_clause. Even the optional where_clause default is left unexplained.
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 'ArcGIS Pro: create features', which is close to the title and arguably misstates the tool as creating features rather than a feature layer. It does not differentiate from siblings such as make_table_view, add_layer_from_path, or create_group_layer.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The second sentence about write/path restrictions being service-dependent does not tell an agent when to choose this over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.