List Reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only generic boilerplate ('returns verifiable structured results', 'restrictions per service capability') that discloses nothing concrete about scope, ordering, or failure behavior.

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, but the opening clause duplicates the title verbatim ('列出list reports'), and the second half is filler that consumes half the text without adding information.

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 required aprx_path is undocumented and there is no indication of what reports are listed or from which project context. For a one-parameter listing tool the description is technically callable but leaves real gaps.

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, so the description carries the full burden — yet it says nothing about the parameter's format or what a valid .aprx path looks like. The 0-param baseline of 4 does not apply because a required parameter exists and is undocumented in both places.

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 names a verb and resource ('列出list reports'), but the phrasing is a near-literal restatement of the tool name/title, with 'list' duplicated in both languages. It never distinguishes this from close siblings such as arcgis_pro_create_report, arcgis_pro_report_sections, arcgis_pro_open_report_view, or arcgis_pro_export_report_pdf.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The trailing clause about write/path restrictions being 'subject to service capabilities' is not actionable guidance for deciding when to call this tool.

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