Current Map Run Analysis

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it preserves the selection set and can add verified outputs back to the map. It omits side effects on the project, error/rollback behavior, and whether 'controlled' implies allow-listing.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. Efficient with no obvious filler, though brevity here comes partly at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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, but this is a complex tool with 5 parameters (3 required, nested objects) at 0% coverage and no annotations explaining mutation semantics. For that complexity, the one-line description is insufficient to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters (aprx_path, tool_name, parameters, environment, add_outputs_to_map), so the description must compensate but does not. It vaguely references 'layer/table URIs' without mapping to any parameter, and says nothing about tool_name, environment, or the output-adding flag.

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+resource: run a controlled named GP in the CURRENT active map using layer/table URIs. This distinguishes it from the generic arcgis_pro_gp_run_tool by scoping execution to the active map context, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'CURRENT 活动地图' and 'controlled named GP', suggesting it is for in-map execution rather than standalone tool invocation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as arcgis_pro_gp_run_tool, leaving the routing ambiguous.

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