Create Map

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

Annotations already specify readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent creation operation. The description adds only a vague note about verifiable structured results and service-capability-dependent write/path limits, without clarifying mutation behavior beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction exists, but the added value is minimal.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loads the core purpose, which is good for conciseness. However, the second clause ('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') is generic boilerplate that adds little concrete value and could be replaced with more useful operational detail.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation (0% coverage) and provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For a creation tool in a complex GIS environment, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable.

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%, meaning none of the four parameters (aprx_path, map_name, map_type, basemap_name) have documented meaning, formats, or constraints in the schema. With such low coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics, but it provides no parameter-specific information at all. This is a severe gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '创建地图' (Create Map) within ArcGIS Pro, which is clear and distinct from siblings like arcgis_pro_list_maps or arcgis_pro_rename_map. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings that also create spatial constructs such as arcgis_pro_create_layout, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention prerequisites such as whether the .aprx project must be open, nor does it compare against alternatives like arcgis_pro_duplicate_map or arcgis_pro_import_document for creating maps.

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