List Definition Queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the active status of each query is returned, which is useful output context, but no auth needs, scoping constraints, or pagination behavior is described.

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 no filler. It communicates the operation, the scope (layer or standalone table), and the returned content (queries plus active status) efficiently.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool with four undocumented parameters and no usage routing, the description leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 three required parameters (aprx_path, map_name, member_name) and an optional member_type that carry no documentation anywhere. The description mentions 'layer or standalone table' and hints at member_type semantics, but does not explain the required project/map/member identifiers, so it fails to 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: listing all named definition queries plus their active status for a layer or standalone table. This cleanly separates it from the mutation siblings (upsert_definition_query, delete_definition_query, set_definition_query). It does not name those alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer from the name that this is the read counterpart to upsert/delete/set definition query, and no conditions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria are given.

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