Report Sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it doesn't explain that it opens/reads a saved project, whether it causes side effects, or how the masked data source data affects the response. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a low score reflects the absence of any supplementary behavioral detail.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the read aspects. It wastes no words, though the enumeration is arguably a list dump rather than structured guidance, and the language mismatch with the English tool name slightly harms parseability.

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 needn't explain return values. Annotations fully cover the read-only/idempotent profile. However, the description omits prerequisites (a project must be open or a path must resolve), the relationship to create/update report siblings, and any parameter semantics. For a 2-required-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, the description is only minimally adequate.

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%, meaning neither aprx_path nor report_name is documented in the schema. The description does not compensate: it never mentions that aprx_path is a path to an .aprx project file or that report_name must reference an existing report. It leaves both required parameters semantically empty, which is a significant gap for an agent.

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 the resource (report sections) and lists sub-aspects it reads (fields, statistics, filters, visibility, masked data sources), which is more informative than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like arcgis_pro_list_reports or arcgis_pro_open_report_view, and it is purely in Chinese while the tool name/title are English, adding a language barrier. The purpose is implied but not sharply stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description merely lists what is read; an agent must guess that this follows arcgis_pro_create_report and that arcgis_pro_update_report_section is the mutation counterpart.

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