get_arcgis_map_instructions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that the output is ArcGIS-specific and will not be MapLibre code, which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether there are side effects, or what 'live data' entails.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage constraint is stated immediately after. Every sentence contributes value.

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 tool, the description adequately conveys purpose and usage boundaries. However, there is no output schema, and the description only vaguely mentions 'live data' without explaining the structure or format of the returned instructions. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent relying on the description alone.

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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage and 0 parameters. With no parameters to document, the description need not add parameter details, so the baseline of 4 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('instructions and live data for an ArcGIS Maps SDK for JavaScript 4.29 map'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from MapLibre by stating it is ONLY for ArcGIS, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance by stating 'This tool is ONLY for ArcGIS' and 'It must not generate MapLibre code.' While it does not name the sibling tool get_maplibre_map_instructions, the reference to MapLibre is sufficient for an agent to route to the correct alternative.

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