arcgis_pro_sdk_edit_statusCheck native unsaved edits and active map Undo/Redo availability in an ArcGIS Pro session to decide whether to save, undo, or continue editing.
读取 SDK 原生未保存编辑及活动地图 Undo/Redo 可用状态。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sdk_session_ref | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does 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 that it reads SDK native unsaved edits and active map undo/redo availability, which is useful domain context, but it does not disclose return format or session-related behavior.
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 with no wasted words. It immediately conveys what the tool reads.
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 simple read-status tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description identifies the domain state being read. However, the required session reference parameter is undocumented, leaving a gap for correct invocation.
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% and the description never explains sdk_session_ref, its expected format, or how to obtain it. The parameter name is minimally self-descriptive, but the description does not 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 specific resources (SDK native unsaved edits and active map Undo/Redo availability), so the agent knows what state is being queried. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like sdk_edit_undo/redo, but the purpose is clear.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sdk_edit_undo or sdk_context, and no prerequisites or session requirements are mentioned. Only the purpose is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.