Create Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds some context by naming the underlying typed method and the permitted source kinds (layer, table, controlled path), but omits side effects, overwrite behavior, permission needs, and where the report is stored.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, it is severely undersized for a 13-parameter write operation, so the brevity comes at the expense of necessary 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?

For a complex mutation tool with 13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no parameter details in the description, the definition is grossly incomplete. Although an output schema exists to cover return values, the agent still lacks the information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 13 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter meaning but does not. It never mentions aprx_path, map_name, report_name, fields, template, styling, statistics, or any other parameter; only a vague hint at source kinds is present.

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 and resource: '创建报表' (create report) from a layer, table, or controlled path. This clearly identifies the tool's action, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like create_layout or list_reports.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when to create a report versus using an existing report, updating sections, or exporting. The agent is left with only the bare action.

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