List Broken Sources

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. The description adds that results are verifiable structured results and that write/path restrictions depend on service capabilities, which adds a small amount of behavioral context beyond annotations but does not describe output format, auth needs, 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?

The description is short and front-loads the purpose before the generic caveat. It avoids bloat, though the bilingual repetition "列出list broken sources" is slightly redundant and the second sentence is boilerplate.

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?

The tool has one required parameter and an output schema, so return-value documentation is not strictly needed. However, the description does not explain what a broken source is, how to supply aprx_path, or how this tool relates to siblings, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 never mentions the required aprx_path parameter or what format it should take. With a required parameter and no schema-level explanation, the description fails to compensate for the missing semantics.

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 "列出list broken sources," which is an exact translation and restatement of the title and tool name. It does not specify what constitutes a broken source or how this differs from related listing tools. This is closer to a tautology than a clear, independent purpose statement.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arcgis_pro_repair_layer_source, arcgis_pro_list_layers, or other project inspection tools. The phrase "写入和路径限制以服务能力为准" mentions constraints but does not say when or why an agent should choose this tool.

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