Sdk Open Table

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, which already covers the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this: it does not explain what the pane does, what the openWorldHint=false means for URI resolution, or what happens if the expected URI/generation doesn't match. For a mutation tool with an output schema but no annotations about side effects, this is thin.

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. Appropriate size for an open-pane action, though the lack of any additional useful content limits how much it earns the top score.

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?

The tool has five parameters at 0% schema description coverage, an output schema, and annotations that only cover hints. The description omits prerequisites (table must already be loaded), the meaning of confirm and expected_context_generation, and any failure-mode behavior. It is too sparse for a stateful UI operation with several undocumented parameters.

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%, four required parameters plus one optional, and the description contributes zero parameter meaning. Terms like expected_map_uri, expected_context_generation, and sdk_session_ref are only referenced obliquely via '按预期地图', leaving their semantics completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 names a specific verb (打开/open) and resource (原生表窗格/native table pane), scoped to a standalone table already loaded in the expected map. It is distinguishable from the raster of arcgis_pro_open_* siblings, though it offers no explicit sibling differentiation text.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the table must already be loaded), and no mention of alternatives such as arcgis_pro_open_layer_table_view. The description only implies usage through its scope statement, providing no explicit context for selection.

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