Retrieve metadata and current state from the active Photoshop document, or activate a specified document ID first so edits target the intended file.
Get information about the active Photoshop document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | No | Optional Photoshop document id from photoshop_get_state / photoshop_list_documents. When set, the tool activates that document before running so a UI tab switch cannot retarget the edit. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that, and it fails to disclose that providing a document_id can switch the active document – a side effect that could impact subsequent operations. The parameter description mentions this, but the tool description itself omits it.
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 redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The description does not explain what information is returned (no output schema exists), and it omits the activation side effect of the optional document_id. For a tool that might be used to gather document metadata, the absence of return details and side-effect disclosure leaves an incomplete picture for an agent.
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 schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, so the description adds no additional semantic value. Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
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 clear verb and resource ('Get information about the active Photoshop document'), which is distinct from sibling get-tools like photoshop_get_layers or photoshop_get_version. However, it does not specify what kind of information is returned, leaving some ambiguity about its exact scope.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as photoshop_get_state or photoshop_get_layers. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.