Table Properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that by stating credentials are redacted (脱敏凭据) and that selection sets are summarized, but it says nothing about failure modes or what happens when the table does not exist.

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 that lists the returned artifacts with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately terse for a read-only inspection tool.

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-value structure need not be spelled out, and the description still usefully previews the returned fields. The remaining gap is the total absence of parameter guidance for a tool that requires three identifiers, which is the one thing an agent must get right to call it.

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 names none of the four parameters. aprx_path, map_name and table_name are undocumented everywhere, and the selection_sample_limit (default 100) is never explained, even though it directly controls the size of the selection summary that the description mentions.

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) plus the target resource (独立表, standalone table) and enumerates exactly what is returned: URI, data source, definition query, join info and selection summary. This is clearly distinguishable from write or list siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with arcgis_pro_layer_properties or arcgis_pro_update_table_properties.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the inspection counterpart to arcgis_pro_update_table_properties and that arcgis_pro_layer_properties covers layers rather than tables.

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