Duplicate Map

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, covering the safety profile. The description's remaining clause ('write and path restrictions follow service capabilities') is generic boilerplate that adds no concrete trait such as what gets overwritten, permission requirements, or whether an existing target map is replaced.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, so it reads cleanly. However, the trailing clause about verifiable structured results and service capabilities is generic filler that does not earn its place for this specific tool.

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 for a mutation-ish map tool the description omits what gets duplicated, whether the copy lands in the same aprx, and naming/overwrite behavior. Combined with zero parameter documentation, the definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 three parameters (aprx_path, map_name, new_map_name), so the description is responsible for compensating and it does not mention any parameter. The field names are largely self-explanatory, which prevents a 1, but the description clarifies nothing about required vs optional behavior or the empty default of new_map_name.

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 ('复制地图' / duplicate a map), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like create_map or rename_map. It stops short of differentiating itself explicitly or explaining what duplication actually copies (layers, definition queries, extents), but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_map or save_project_copy. The agent gets no help deciding when duplicate_map is the right choice over adjacent tools.

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