Window Status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint false, and destructiveHint false. The description reinforces read-only behavior ('不修改工程') and adds that queue, busy state, and session ID are included, but it adds no auth, rate-limit, or freshness caveats beyond '实时' (real-time). With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 Chinese sentence front-loads the read action and the status components, then closes with the non-mutation guarantee. There are no wasted clauses or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with a full output schema and complete safety annotations, the description supplies enough context: what is read and that nothing is modified. Return-value documentation is not needed because an output schema exists.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema has nothing to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for parameter meaning.

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 read verb and enumerates the resources: project, active view, queue, busy status, and session identifier. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as arcgis_pro_window_job_status or arcgis_pro_active_view_info, so it falls short of a 5.

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 alternative tools named, and no preconditions stated. The agent must infer that this is the status-snapshot tool among many window/job/status siblings.

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