arcgis_pro_sdk_wait_eventsLong-poll ArcGIS Pro SDK native events such as active view, camera, selection, DrawComplete, editing, and project switches, returning when one occurs or the timeout expires.
长轮询 SDK 原生事件：活动视图、相机、选择、DrawComplete、编辑和工程开关。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| wait_ms | No | ||
| 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, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that this is a long-polling consumer of asynchronous events, but it does not disclose timeout/empty-result behavior or that wait_ms governs blocking duration.
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 filler; the event enumeration is dense but earns its place as the tool's core output contract.
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 shape need not be described, but for a long-polling cursor tool the absence of any parameter or usage explanation leaves an agent unable to invoke it correctly. The description should at minimum clarify cursor (after), batching (limit), and blocking (wait_ms) semantics.
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% for four parameters (after, limit, wait_ms, sdk_session_ref), so the description must compensate but does not: it explains none of their roles, cursor semantics, default limit, or blocking window. The event-type list it provides does not map to any parameter.
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-resource pair ('long-poll SDK native events') and enumerates the event categories surfaced (active view, camera, selection, DrawComplete, edits, project toggles). This is far more informative than a bare title, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similarly-shaped arcgis_pro_window_wait_for_change sibling.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, and it is silent on how it relates to arcgis_pro_window_wait_for_change or arcgis_pro_sdk_context. The only implied usage cue is the long-poll framing itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.