run_geoprocessing_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions acceptable tool name formats, parameter methods, and layer input capabilities, but does not disclose potential side effects, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only. This leaves significant gaps.

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 of three sentences, front-loading the purpose. It is concise but could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of parameter usage for improved 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 the tool's complexity (runs any geoprocessing tool) and lack of annotations, the description should provide more context. It does not mention return values (though an output schema exists), error handling, or prerequisites. The description feels incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is essential. It explains `tool_name` format, the `parameters` keyword dict, and `args` positional array, with a concrete example. While not exhaustive, it adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 description clearly states that the tool runs any arcpy geoprocessing tool, with examples of tool name formats and parameter passing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a generic runner, though it is very broad.

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 implies its use for running geoprocessing tools but does not specify when to avoid it or mention alternatives like `execute_arcpy_code`. No explicit usage context or exclusion criteria are given.

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