List Layouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds generic boilerplate ('returns verifiable structured results; write and path restrictions subject to service capabilities') that does not specify what is listed, ordering, or path-handling behavior for this tool specifically.

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-loads the action, but the second clause is generic filler that would apply to any tool in this server and earns little space for this definition.

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 with a required aprx_path parameter undocumented in both schema and description, an agent lacks what it needs to call the tool correctly. Annotations cover safety, yet the operational gap remains.

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% for the single required parameter aprx_path, and the description never mentions it or its expected format (e.g., a .aprx file path). The only hint comes from the parameter name itself, so the description 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 says it lists layouts in an ArcGIS Pro project, which is a specific verb+resource, but '列出list layouts' largely restates the tool name/title rather than adding distinguishing detail. Among many siblings (list_layout_elements, list_layout_map_frames, list_maps, list_projects), nothing tells the agent why this tool exists separately or what scope it covers beyond the name.

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 alternatives such as arcgis_pro_list_layout_elements or arcgis_pro_list_maps, and no prerequisites for the aprx_path. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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