Layer Properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds only a generic note that write and path restrictions 'depend on service capabilities,' which is boilerplate rather than concrete behavioral context about scope, permissions, or failure modes.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, with no padding. Brevity is fine; the problem is substance, not length.

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. However, with no usage guidance, no parameter detail, and only a vague purpose statement, an agent lacks what it needs to call this correctly among ~300 siblings.

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% and the description contributes nothing about aprx_path, map_name, or layer_name (format, whether the map/layer must be currently open, path conventions). With three fully undocumented required parameters, the description fails to compensate.

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 phrase '读取属性图层' is an awkward, near-tautological restatement of the name/title ('Layer Properties') and arguably mis-describes the operation for an aprx/map/layer property reader. It never differentiates from the many adjacent siblings such as arcgis_pro_table_properties, arcgis_pro_describe, arcgis_pro_list_layers, or arcgis_pro_list_layer_renderers.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (project/map/layer must already be open), and no alternatives. An agent has no way to know this tool is preferred over arcgis_pro_describe or arcgis_pro_table_properties for inspecting a layer.

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