Raster Cell Statistics

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

Annotations declare the tool is non-read-only (creates an output) but not destructive, which the description does not contradict. The description mentions limiting statistical, multiband, and percentile parameters but does not disclose key behaviors such as output generation, whether it overwrites existing rasters, or resource requirements. With no annotations covering the actual computation, the description fails to carry the behavioral burden.

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 a single sentence that is reasonably concise but front-loads the tool name rather than key constraints. It is not overly verbose but could be more structured.

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?

Given the parameter count (8), 0% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the meaning of parameters, the output format (though output schema exists), or the relationship to sibling tools. However, the output schema alleviates some burden, and the description at least mentions some parameter categories.

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%, meaning all 8 parameters are completely undocumented. The description adds no meaning for any parameter, not even for the required in_rasters_or_constants or out_raster. This is a severe 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 states the tool runs 'Cell Statistics' on rasters or constant lists, naming the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling raster tools and merely repeats the title, leaving only a vague sense of purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arcgis_pro_raster_focal_statistics or arcgis_pro_raster_calculate_statistics. The mention of '受控栅格或常量列表' is a constraint but not a usage scenario or exclusion.

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