Raster Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds which attributes are surfaced, but does not disclose cost, file-locking, or whether statistics are computed on demand versus read from cache.

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 tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and the attribute list following. Every clause earns its place, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is any routing signal versus the many raster/describe/workspace siblings and any hint about the path argument, leaving the definition 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% and the single parameter raster_path carries no schema description. The description says nothing about the accepted path form (e.g., .tif, file geodatabase raster, or workspace-relative path), so it does not compensate for the 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?

States a specific verb (读取/read) and resource (raster) and enumerates the concrete attributes returned: format, bands, pixel type, extent, spatial reference, and statistics. This clearly distinguishes it from write tools, but it never names or differentiates itself from close siblings like arcgis_pro_gp_get_raster_property or arcgis_pro_workspace_list_rasters.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for inspecting a raster's metadata rather than for listing rasters (workspace_list_rasters) or reading a single property (gp_get_raster_property).

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