photoshop_get_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it declares 'Side effects: none,' states the precondition (active document), and describes the return structure (layerCount, layers array, context) including the LayerSets/is_artboard detail. Minor gap: what 'context' contains is unspecified, but overall disclosure is strong.

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections (Use when / Do NOT use when / Returns / Preconditions / Side effects). Main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence carries distinct informational value. Zero wasted words.

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 read-only listing tool with a single optional parameter, everything an agent needs is present: purpose, usage routing, return format (compensating for the missing output schema), preconditions, and side effects. The only minor omission is the precise contents of the 'context' field and pagination limits for large documents.

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 optional parameter document_id is thoroughly documented in the schema itself (source, activation behavior, retargeting rationale). The description references 'active document' but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (list) with a resource (layers) and clear scope (active document) plus the exact returned fields (kind, visibility, opacity). Distinguishes itself from photoshop_get_state, which is explicitly named as the lighter alternative for session summaries. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Provides explicit use-when conditions (choosing a layer to edit, debugging structure, after organize_layers) and an explicit do-not-use-when with a named alternative (photoshop_get_state for session summary). This is exemplary guidance that leaves nothing to inference.

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