Open Report View

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

Annotations cover the key behavioral profile: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false — so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, repeatable state-changing UI operation. The description adds 'activate', signaling focus/selection change in the UI, but doesn't explain what happens if the view exists already or how window focus interacts with other views.

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?

Single sentence, no filler. Front-loaded with the action and context. Could be improved only by expanding into useful guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, which helps. However, for a UI state-changing tool with 0% schema coverage on its two required parameters, the definition leaves the agent without enough to know what a valid report_name or aprx_path looks like.

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% — neither aprx_path nor report_name has any description in the schema. The tool description says nothing about the parameters, so it fails to compensate. The agent must infer that report_name is a report identifier and aprx_path a project file path.

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 specific verb and resource in Chinese ('打开并激活一个报表视图' — open and activate a report view), which is clear on its own. It is distinguishable from arcgis_pro_open_map_view and arcgis_pro_open_layout_view by naming the report resource explicitly.

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?

It scopes the operation to the 'CURRENT' ArcGIS Pro window, implying it won't spawn a new instance, which is a useful usage hint. But it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives and no mention of prerequisites, though the sibling naming makes the routing self-evident.

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