Raster Copy

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it rejects implicit overwrite ('拒绝隐式覆盖') and verifies output ('核验输出'), providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not fully describe the verification mechanism, error behavior, or output details, leaving gaps. With annotations covering safety, this adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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, concise sentence in Chinese that is front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently conveys key points without unnecessary words. However, the use of a non-English description may reduce readability for some agents, slightly impacting structure.

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 tool has 14 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema (though output_schema indicates has_output_schema is true, but description says has_output_schema: true in context signals; actually context signals say 'Has output schema: true', so description need not explain return values). The description mentions output verification but does not cover parameter usage or environment handling. It provides some context but leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool without relying on external documentation.

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 none of the 14 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not mention any parameter names or their meanings, so it does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation. It implies the use of the GP output root but provides no details on parameters like pixel_type, output_format, or environment. Baseline 3 when schema coverage is high is not applicable; with low coverage, this score reflects minimal parameter semantics.

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 specific verb and action: copy a raster using the fixed signature CopyRaster into the GP output root. This clearly communicates the operation, distinguishing it from siblings like arcgis_pro_gp_mosaic_to_new_raster or arcgis_pro_gp_resample. It could be more explicit about supported input types but is sufficiently clear.

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 '用固定签名 CopyRaster' (use fixed signature CopyRaster) and '复制到 GP 输出根' (copy to GP output root), implying the tool is for raster copying to a specific location. It also notes '拒绝隐式覆盖' (reject implicit overwrite), which provides a when-not condition: implicit overwrites are not allowed. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or broader when-to-use guidance.

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