arcgis_pro_reverse_geocodeConvert point features to addresses with a controlled local locator, restricting feature and location types and verifying output.
用受控本地 locator 对点要素反向地理编码；限制 feature/location 类型并核验输出。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| in_features | Yes | ||
| locator_path | Yes | ||
| feature_types | No | ||
| location_type | No | ADDRESS_LOCATION | |
| out_feature_class | 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 readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that a local (non-open-world) locator is used and that the output is verified, which is useful, but it does not explain what gets written, overwrite behavior, or locator requirements beyond 'controlled local'.
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 that front-loads the core operation and its constraints. No filler, though the terseness partly stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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 need not be described, but with 5 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and a write-producing tool, the description is too thin. Required inputs and their formats remain undocumented for an agent to call it correctly.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It touches on feature/location type constraints but leaves the required in_features, locator_path, and out_feature_class parameters with no explanation of format or expected values, meaning only a fraction of the 5 parameters are clarified.
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 resource: reverse-geocoding point features with a local locator. It is clear what the tool does and implicitly contrasts with the forward-geocoding sibling (arcgis_pro_geocode_addresses), though it never names that alternative.
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 the usage context ('用受控本地 locator' – with a controlled local locator, and verifying output), which hints at when the tool is appropriate. However it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never routes the agent to or away from sibling geocoding tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.