List Tables

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 adds that results are 'verifiable structured' and that write/path limits depend on service capability, which is light but non-contradictory added context. It does not, however, explain what is listed or any scope constraints on the returned tables.

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-loads the action, which is good. But a large share of its length is generic boilerplate ('returns verifiable structured results; write and path restrictions are subject to service capability') that could apply to nearly any tool in this suite, so it is terse without being informative.

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 the description need not explain return values. But with two required, fully undocumented parameters and no differentiation from a dozen list_* siblings, the description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably select and invoke this tool.

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 both required parameters (aprx_path, map_name), and the description supplies no meaning for either. An agent must infer that aprx_path is a .aprx project file path and map_name identifies a map within it, which is exactly the kind of gap the description should fill.

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 gives a verb+resource ('list tables') in a mixed Chinese/English phrasing, so the core action is identifiable. However, it does nothing to distinguish this tool from the many near-identical siblings such as arcgis_pro_workspace_list_tables, arcgis_pro_list_layers, or arcgis_pro_list_maps, leaving the agent to guess from the name alone.

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 like arcgis_pro_workspace_list_tables or arcgis_pro_list_layers. The only contextual hint is the generic 'subject to service capabilities' clause, which is not actionable usage guidance.

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