List Bookmarks

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a generic claim that results are verifiable and a vague caveat about write/path restrictions being subject to service capabilities, which is boilerplate and partly irrelevant for a read-only tool. It does not disclose what happens if the project path or map is invalid, nor any auth or return-shape context.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the core purpose, but the second clause is generic boilerplate that does not fully earn its place. It is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 detailed, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool with two required path parameters and many sibling bookmark operations, the description omits parameter meaning, prerequisites, and any usage context, leaving significant gaps.

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 both required parameters (aprx_path and map_name) lack any description in the schema. The tool description does not mention either parameter or explain expected formats, so it 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: '列出书签' (list bookmarks). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling bookmark tools such as create, update, delete, import, or export bookmarks, nor does it clarify that it lists bookmarks for a map within an ArcGIS Pro project.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as an open project or valid map name, and no indication of what it returns beyond a generic statement. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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