Export Active View Image

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that it captures whatever view is currently in front of the user (an implicit prerequisite), but omits that it writes a file to output_path and what happens if no view is active.

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 compact sentence with no waste and the key scope (active view) front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameter set.

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 explained, but for a 7-parameter writing tool with 0% schema coverage the description leaves critical gaps: no parameter meaning, no prerequisite that a view must be open, no indication of file format behavior.

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 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it explains none of them. width, height, jpeg_quality, resolution_dpi, transparent_background, aprx_path and output_path all remain opaque, including the two required ones.

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 (导出) and resource (CURRENT 活动地图或布局视图), and the modifier 'active view' meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like arcgis_pro_export_layout_image and arcgis_pro_export_map_to_image. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

'作为窗口操作后的视觉验收快照' implies a usage context (post window-operation visual verification), which is genuine guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over the many other export tools or any prerequisites (e.g. a view must be open), leaving routing to inference.

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