list_layers_in_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('does not modify layer state') and operates on the saved project file only. While it does not detail permissions or error conditions, it is transparent about the core behavior.

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 sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, and its scope/behavior. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (handling return values), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage, and constraints. It could mention that the map must exist in the project, but this is implied by the read operation.

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?

Although schema description coverage is low (0% per context), the tool description adds value beyond the schema by noting that 'map_name' can be None to target the first map. This compensates for the missing schema documentation and helps the agent understand parameter usage.

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 the verb (List), resource (layers in a selected map), and specific details (visibility, group-layer status, data source). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_layers' by specifying 'in a map' and the exact use case for discovering layer names before operations.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before visibility, ordering, symbology, rename, or zoom operations') and clarifies that it only reads the saved .aprx and does not modify state. It does not list exclusions or alternative tools, but provides sufficient context for usage.

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