Select Layer By Attribute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation-vs-safe profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note – that it cross-checks the ArcPy-derived count against the actual selection set – which is context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about how the selection behaves on repeat calls or which selection replaces which.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action, with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no enums, the description leaves the essential calling inputs (selection_type values, where_clause syntax) unexplained. The output schema does cover return values, but the parameter-level completeness an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 mentions no parameters at all. The critical 'selection_type' parameter has no enum and no documentation, so an agent has no idea what values it accepts (NEW_SELECTION, ADD_TO_SELECTION, etc.), and the 'where_clause' SQL syntax is likewise unexplained; 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 states a specific verb and resource ('更新图层选择集' – update the layer selection set) qualified by method ('按属性' – by attribute). This distinguishes it from the by-location sibling at a conceptual level, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like select_layer_by_location, select_table_by_attribute, clear_map_selection, or current_layer_set_selection. Usage is only implied by the name; no preconditions or exclusions are given.

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