arcgis_pro_tool_infoRead metadata for a tool or complete directory—description, input/output schemas, execution mode, security gates—without calling ArcPy. Use it to inspect tools before running workflows.
读取一个工具或完整工具目录的描述、输入输出 schema、执行模式和安全门，不调用 ArcPy。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No |
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it reads execution mode and security gate, and explicitly says it does not call ArcPy, which clarifies it is safe for inspection. It does not mention permissions or response size limits, but the added context goes beyond annotations.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It packs the essential scope and the 'no ArcPy call' constraint efficiently.
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's purpose and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what is retrieved (description, I/O schema, execution mode, security gate). It is nearly complete, though it could clarify the parameter format for a directory.
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 'name' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description hints that the parameter can be a tool or a complete tool directory, but does not specify format (e.g., path, alias, or identifier) or how to address a directory, so it only partially compensates.
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 and resource: reads the description, input/output schema, execution mode, and security gate of a tool or complete tool directory. Clear what it does, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like arcgis_pro_describe or arcgis_pro_gp_list_tools_in_toolbox.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. It mentions '不调用 ArcPy' (without calling ArcPy), implying it is read-only, but does not state conditions, exclusions, or point to sibling tools for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.