Mapframe Time Info

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 adds genuinely useful semantics beyond annotations: MapTime is not the same as the active MapView time slider, which prevents misinterpreting the returned state against other time tools.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence joined by a semicolon: the purpose comes first and the disambiguating caveat second. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only inspection tool with full annotations and an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description explains the concept and its key semantic caveat. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any parameter guidance, which the schema also fails to provide.

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?

All three parameters (aprx_path, layout_name, mapframe_name) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no meaning for any of them. The parameter names are largely self-evident (path, layout name, mapframe name), which softens the gap, but the description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb (读取/read) and resource (布局地图框的 MapTime 状态和当前时间范围), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It also distinguishes the concept from the active MapView time slider, though it doesn't name a sibling tool like set_mapframe_time as the mutation counterpart. Clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Usage is implied by the description — read this when you need a layout mapframe's time state rather than the active view's time slider — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not clause or named alternative (e.g., arcgis_pro_sdk_set_active_time or arcgis_pro_set_time_slider). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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