Refresh Layer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows the operation is a non-destructive, repeatable, local refresh. The description adds the useful scoping detail that the refresh targets the visible map view in the current window, but says nothing about side effects, required project state, or what happens if the layer is not visible.

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 that states the action and target with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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. However, with three required and fully undocumented parameters and no usage guidance, the description is only minimally sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly in the right situation.

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, map_name, layer_name) have 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no meaning, and the description only obliquely implies a layer and a map. It never explains what aprx_path expects, whether the names must match exactly, or how they relate to the currently open project.

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 (刷新/refresh) and resource (the visible map view containing the specified layer in the current ArcGIS Pro window), which lets an agent distinguish it from layer-editing siblings like set_layer_visible or rename_layer. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with refresh-like siblings such as arcgis_pro_sdk_refresh_view or arcgis_pro_refresh_map_series.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The agent must infer that this is the tool for repainting a map view after making layer changes rather than, say, arcgis_pro_sdk_refresh_view or arcgis_pro_reload_project.

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