Active View Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real operational constraint not present in the schema — that only aprx_path=CURRENT is accepted — and clarifies the response is 'real-time' view/camera data. It does not discuss failure modes when no view is active.

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 compact sentence with the resource description front-loaded and the aprx_path constraint trailing; no filler text at all.

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, and the description covers what is read plus the key parameter constraint. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool, missing only what happens when no active view exists.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: it pins aprx_path to the single accepted value CURRENT. That is genuinely valuable beyond the bare string-typed schema, though no format example or rationale is given.

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 (读取/read) and resource (当前窗口的活动地图/布局视图和实时相机范围), so an agent knows it returns the current window's active view plus camera extent. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from look-alike siblings such as arcgis_pro_map_camera or arcgis_pro_window_status, keeping it below a 5.

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 clause '仅支持 aprx_path=CURRENT' gives an important precondition for use, implying this only works against the currently open project. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like map_camera or sdk_context, so usage is only implied rather than routed.

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