List Maps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only additions are the generic claims 'returns verifiable structured results' and that write/path restrictions depend on service capability, neither of which gives concrete behavior for this 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?

It is short and front-loaded, so it is not bloated, but the brevity comes from having almost no content — the second clause is filler that does not earn its place.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description still leaves the essential question unanswered: what aprx_path must be and under what project state the tool works. An output schema removes the need to describe return values, but not the need to describe input expectations.

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?

The single required parameter aprx_path has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate — it never explains what a valid aprx_path looks like or whether it must point to an open project. With no parameters (baseline 4) this would be fine, but here the one required parameter is fully undocumented.

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 amounts to 'ArcGIS Pro: list maps', which restates the tool name and title rather than stating scope. It does not distinguish this tool from near siblings such as arcgis_pro_list_layers, arcgis_pro_list_layouts, or arcgis_pro_list_tables, which all follow the same naming pattern.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. The clause '写入和路径限制以服务能力为准' is a vague hedge about service-side limits rather than actionable usage context.

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