Layout Element Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully handled. The description adds only the set of returned attributes, which overlaps with the existing output schema and provides no extra behavioral context such as error conditions or lookup semantics. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with a clear verb followed by a compact attribute list; no filler and no redundancy. Every clause carries information.

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?

Because annotations are rich and an output schema exists, the description need not explain returns or safety, and the returned-field list roughly mirrors the output schema. What is missing for correct invocation is how to target a specific element via the undocumented element_type parameter and how this differs from list_layout_elements, leaving the definition only minimally complete.

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, but the description says nothing about aprx_path, layout_name, or element_type. In particular, how element_type filters or selects elements (and how an element is uniquely identified, e.g. via the repeat index/URI mentioned) is left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?

The description opens with a specific verb (读取/read) and resource (布局元素/layout element), then enumerates exactly which attributes are returned (URI, repeat index, position, size, rotation, text, parent group, map binding). An agent knows what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the adjacent arcgis_pro_list_layout_elements or arcgis_pro_analysis_asset_info, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when to prefer an alternative, or any prerequisite (e.g. that an .aprx and layout must already be open). The presence of list_layout_elements as a sibling makes the missing routing guidance costly, since the agent must guess which one to call.

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