Open Map View

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's bar is lower. It adds the constraint that aprx_path must be CURRENT and that the view is 'opened and focused,' which is useful behavioral context. However, with close_other_views as a parameter, the description doesn't mention the side effect of closing other views when true, which is a notable gap.

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 a single, concise sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded after the main action. It wastes no words, though the single-sentence format limits its completeness.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are present, the description should at least clarify the close_other_views side effect and the map_name parameter. It partially covers purpose and the aprx_path constraint but leaves key behavioral and parameter details unaddressed.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions aprx_path=CURRENT, leaving map_name and close_other_views completely undocumented. The close_other_views boolean's effect is not explained, and map_name is not elaborated. This is a significant parameter semantics 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 states a specific verb+resource: it opens and focuses a specific map view in the current ArcGIS Pro window. This is clear enough to distinguish it from listing tools (list_maps) or setting extents, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The scope constraint (only supports aprx_path=CURRENT) further sharpens purpose.

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: use when you need to open a specific map view. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance relative to siblings like open_layout_view, close_views, or list_maps. The constraint that only CURRENT is supported is helpful but doesn't explain when this tool should be preferred over alternatives.

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