Workspace List Rasters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'returns verifiable structured results; write and path restrictions follow service capabilities' is generic boilerplate that adds little beyond the annotations and gives no concrete behavioral facts (pagination, truncation at max_items, behavior on invalid paths).

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?

It is short and front-loaded, so it is not bloated, but the second sentence is filler boilerplate rather than an earned clarification. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than from density of useful content.

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 explained. However, for a 3-parameter listing tool with no schema descriptions and a resource label that conflicts with the tool name, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it correctly or safely distinguish it from siblings.

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 three parameters (workspace_path required, max_items defaulting to 200, wild_card defaulting to '*'), so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions path format, the wildcard filter syntax, or what the default item cap implies – the vague phrase 'path restrictions' does not cover any parameter meaningfully.

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 says '列出工作空间' (list workspaces), but the tool name and title both say 'Workspace List Rasters' – the actual resource (rasters) is mislabeled, which is a real selection hazard among the many arcgis_pro_workspace_list_* siblings. A verb is present ('列出'), but the object is wrong, so an agent cannot trust it to distinguish this from list_feature_classes or list_tables.

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 when-to-use statement, no condition for choosing this over the ~15 sibling list_* tools, and no note about prerequisites such as an open project or a valid workspace. The only adjacent sentence concerns write/path policy, not usage.

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