get_map_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully reveals the required runtime state (tab open) and that the result is a camera/view snapshot, but it does not say whether the call fails or returns stale data when the tab is closed, and 'get' only implicitly signals a non-mutating read.

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?

Two compact sentences: the returned content is front-loaded and the precondition follows, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists, so there is no need to enumerate return fields, yet the description still summarizes them. The precondition is the key operational detail and it is present; only the failure behavior when the tab is closed is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the single map_name parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default to the active map. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific resource returned (current camera position with centre, scale, rotation, visible extent) rather than restating the name, so an agent knows it is a read of the map view state. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_map_extent, which covers overlapping ground, 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?

It supplies a real precondition (the map's tab must be open in ArcGIS Pro), which is more than most entries. However, it never says when to use this versus alternatives like get_map_extent or set_map_view, so usage is only implied.

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