Current Layer Query Rows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that the tool operates on the CURRENT active map layer and can optionally honor the current UI selection set. It does not explain what happens when selected_only is false, how max_rows interacts, or error behavior.

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 redundant wording. It is concise and structurally clean, though very terse for a tool with six parameters. It does not waste words, but it also does not provide layered 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with six parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. It omits usage routing to sibling tools and leaves most parameter semantics unexplained.

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 parameter meaning. It only loosely references the layer and the current UI selection set, which maps to layer_name and selected_only. It does not explain aprx_path, fields, max_rows, or where_clause, leaving required parameters undocumented.

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: '读取属性' (read attributes) from a layer in the CURRENT active map. This distinguishes it from generic data-access siblings by scoping to the current active map and current UI selection set. It does not explicitly name alternative query tools, so it falls short of 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 description does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arcgis_pro_da_query_rows or the selection helpers. '可选择严格使用当前 UI 选择集' describes a parameter behavior, not a usage condition or exclusion. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.

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