arcgis_pro_raster_fillFill sinks in a surface raster using a controlled Spatial Analyst checkout and local environment, then verify the output raster.
在一次受控 Spatial Analyst 签出和局部环境中填洼，并核验输出栅格。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| z_limit | No | ||
| environment | No | ||
| in_surface_raster | Yes | ||
| out_surface_raster | 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 non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds operational details beyond them: a controlled Spatial Analyst checkout, local environment execution, and output raster verification. It still omits overwrite/input-preservation semantics.
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler. It is terse but appropriately sized for a short tool definition.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return values. However, for a four-parameter geoprocessing tool with zero schema descriptions, it leaves usage and parameter details thin, so it is only minimally complete.
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 four parameters. The description names no parameters and gives no meaning for z_limit, environment, or the input/output rasters beyond what the operation implies, leaving parameter semantics largely undocumented.
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 operation ('填洼' / fill sinks) on a raster resource, and adds execution context (controlled Spatial Analyst checkout, local environment). It does not explicitly distinguish this hydrology tool from siblings such as flow direction or watershed, so it stops short of a 5.
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 implies use for sink filling under a checked-out Spatial Analyst extension and local environment, giving prerequisite context. It does not say when to choose this over alternative hydrology or raster tools, nor does it list exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.