arcgis_pro_workspace_list_tablesList tables in an ArcGIS Pro workspace, with optional wildcard filtering and a max item limit, to inspect available datasets before running GIS workflows.
ArcGIS Pro：列出工作空间。返回可验证的结构化结果；写入和路径限制以服务能力为准。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_items | No | ||
| wild_card | No | * | |
| workspace_path | 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds only generic boilerplate about 'verifiable structured results' and service-dependent write/path restrictions, which is vague and does not provide tool-specific behavioral detail.
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 description is short, but its first sentence misstates the resource and its second sentence is generic boilerplate. It is under-specified rather than usefully concise.
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?
The tool has three parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and many sibling workspace/list tools, yet the description does not clarify its specific purpose, parameters, or usage context. An output schema exists, but the core description remains inadequate.
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 description does not explain workspace_path, wild_card, or max_items. It adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names in the schema.
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 name says list_tables, but the description says only 'ArcGIS Pro: List workspace' and never states that it lists tables in a workspace. It is vague and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like arcgis_pro_workspace_list_feature_classes, list_rasters, or list_datasets.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, supported workspace types, or how it differs from other workspace listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.