Layer Selection Fids

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results are drawn from getSelectionSet and that the return size can be capped, but says nothing about empty selections, ordering, or truncation behavior when max_fids is hit.

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 that front-loads the core action and then the optional limiting behavior. No wasted text, though it is perhaps under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is parameter documentation for a 4-param, 0%-coverage schema, which the description does not fill.

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% with 4 parameters. The description only gestures at max_fids ('可限制返回数量') and leaves the three required parameters (aprx_path, map_name, layer_name) entirely undocumented, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (读取/read) and resource (图层选中要素 ID from getSelectionSet), which is distinguishable from the count variant by emphasizing 'exact IDs'. However, it never names a sibling tool like arcgis_pro_layer_selection_count or arcgis_pro_table_selection_fids, so differentiation must be inferred.

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 implies the usage context (reading a layer's current selection) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it point to alternatives such as the count tool or clear_map_selection. Usage must be inferred.

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