Table Selection Count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the count reflects the selection set rather than total records, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe return format (output schema exists) or any other behavioral traits like permissions or rate limits.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, given the tool's complexity (3 required parameters with no schema descriptions), the description is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It earns its place but leaves clear gaps.

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 values need not be explained in the description. Annotations cover safety. But the description omits any parameter guidance and usage context, leaving the agent unable to determine what aprx_path, map_name, and table_name should be or when to choose this tool over siblings.

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 all three required parameters (aprx_path, map_name, table_name). The description does not mention or explain any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation. An agent has no guidance on what values these parameters expect.

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: returns the exact row count of the current selection set of a standalone table. It also distinguishes this from a total record count, which prevents confusion with a general count operation. An agent can tell this apart from sibling tools like arcgis_pro_layer_selection_count based on the resource 'standalone table'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arcgis_pro_layer_selection_count or arcgis_pro_table_selection_fids. It only notes a behavioral constraint (don't substitute total count), which is not usage guidance. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool is named.

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