arcgis_run_gp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output layers are automatically added to the map, warns that layer names are unreliable and recommends full paths, and explains the allow_delete safety mechanism. It does not cover error handling or performance, but is still quite transparent.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently conveys the main purpose first, then details. Every sentence adds value, though a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it. It mentions output visibility and parameter format. It does not describe return values, but the tool's side effect (adding layers to map) is clear.

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 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by providing examples (e.g., 'analysis.Buffer'), explaining that params are positional strings, and giving formatting hints like '500 Meters' for distances.

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 clearly states the tool runs any ArcGIS geoprocessing tool (entire ArcToolbox) and that output layers are added to the current map. It distinguishes itself from siblings like arcgis_query or arcgis_symbology by focusing on arbitrary GP tool execution.

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 provides examples of tool naming and parameters, and includes a safety opt-in for destructive tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, which would strengthen guidance.

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