get_active_map_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and 'currently shown in ArcGIS Pro' scopes it to the live session. It does not cover edge cases like 'no active map', but the simple getter nature and existing output schema reduce the need.

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. It immediately communicates the verb and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

This is a zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, so the description is complete enough for invocation. It names the target object (active map) and the application context (ArcGIS Pro), which is all an agent needs to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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 has zero properties, so no parameter-specific documentation is needed. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly introduces no irrelevant parameter details.

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 ('Get'), a precise resource ('the name of the active map currently shown in ArcGIS Pro'), and clear scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_map or get_project_info without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 clearly signals when to use this tool: when the active/currently displayed map name is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not conditions, but with zero parameters and no directly overlapping sibling, the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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