List Layout Map Frames

Does 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 generic boilerplate ("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") that is not specific to this read-only listing operation and discloses nothing new.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the verb, with no padding sentences. However, the two clauses are boilerplate rather than informative, so brevity comes at the cost of usefulness rather than from tight editing.

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 described, but for a tool with two required, undocumented parameters and a strong sibling cluster, the description omits the resource identity, the parameter meaning, and any usage boundary. It is not sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Both required parameters (aprx_path, layout_name) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention either one. It provides no format, path, or naming guidance to compensate for the gap, leaving both parameters semantically opaque.

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 "列出布局" (list layouts), but the tool is named list_layout_map_frames and should list the map frames within a layout. That conflates it with the sibling arcgis_pro_list_layouts and actively misdirects the agent about the resource being listed.

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 versus arcgis_pro_list_layouts, arcgis_pro_list_layout_elements, or arcgis_pro_layout_element_info. The generic "service capability" clause gives no operational context, so the agent must guess.

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