arcgis_pro_list_layer_renderersList all renderers configured for a layer in an ArcGIS Pro map, returning structured details to inspect symbolization and rendering settings.
ArcGIS Pro：列出图层。返回可验证的结构化结果；写入和路径限制以服务能力为准。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| map_name | Yes | ||
| aprx_path | Yes | ||
| layer_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds vague boilerplate about 'verifiable structured results' and service-dependent write/path restrictions, which does not meaningfully extend behavioral understanding for a read-only renderer-listing tool.
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-loaded, but the content is misdirected and generic. It is concise without earning its place, since the first sentence describes the wrong resource and the second 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still fails to state what renderers are, how they relate to a layer, or what parameters are needed. It is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly given the total absence of parameter documentation.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions none of the three required parameters (aprx_path, map_name, layer_name) and provides no meaning, format, or constraints for any of them.
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 tool is named and titled 'List Layer Renderers', but the description says '列出图层' (list layers), which names the wrong resource and directly conflicts with the tool's identity. This is misleading and could cause an agent to confuse it with arcgis_pro_list_layers.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. It does not explain when to choose this tool over sibling list tools such as arcgis_pro_list_layers or arcgis_pro_describe.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.