Raster Con

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds only that a SQL condition is involved, but says nothing about output raster creation, overwrite behavior, or execution semantics beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is well-formed, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a stylistic strength to celebrate.

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 6-parameter geoprocessing tool with 0% schema description coverage and an output schema, one sentence is inadequate. The description should explain the conditional/true/false raster logic and the where_clause semantics, none of which are covered elsewhere.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps to in_conditional_raster, the true/false rasters-or-constants, and where_clause, but leaves the distinction between in_true vs in_false, out_raster, and environment entirely undefined.

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 a verb and object — executing a Con conditional calculation on a conditional raster/constant — which conveys the general operation. However, 'Con 条件计算' largely restates the tool name 'Raster Con' and gives no differentiation from sibling conditional/raster tools like arcgis_pro_gp_raster_calculator or arcgis_pro_gp_reclassify.

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?

It mentions an 'optional SQL condition' but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. An agent cannot infer from this text when Con should be preferred over raster_calculator or set_null.

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