Get Layer Extent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only additions are boilerplate ('returns verifiable structured results' / 'write and path restrictions per service capabilities') that conveys no concrete behavioral trait such as units, coordinate system of the extent, or error conditions.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy: the sentence is generic boilerplate that could be pasted onto any read tool in this server. Not front-loaded with the actual resource (extent).

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. However, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and many near-sibling read tools, the description should at minimum say what is retrieved and how the layer is identified — none of that is present.

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% for three required parameters (aprx_path, map_name, layer_name). The description does not explain the expected path format, whether map_name must be an existing map in that .aprx, or how layer_name is resolved (by name vs. by URI). With the schema silent and the description silent, nothing documents the inputs.

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 says only 'read layer' (读取图层), which restates the generic family verb and never mentions the actual resource of interest — the layer's extent. An agent cannot distinguish this from arcgis_pro_layer_properties, arcgis_pro_map_spatial_reference, or arcgis_pro_list_layers, all of which are also protected reads of layer-related data.

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 named alternative, and no precondition (e.g., project must be open, layer must exist in the named map). The description offers nothing beyond the bare operation.

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