photoshop_ping

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the success condition, the extendscript_timeout retry case, the scratch_disk_full condition with free-space threshold and remediation, the failure string when Photoshop is absent, preconditions, and side effects including that it does not launch Photoshop.

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 front-loaded and organized into Use when, Do NOT use when, Returns, Preconditions, and Side effects. Despite its detail, every sentence carries operational value for a diagnostic tool with non-trivial failure modes.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the relevant return states, retry behavior, failure cases, preconditions, and side effects. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. It appropriately stays focused on invocation context and return behavior rather than inventing 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+resource: verify that the Photoshop scripting engine can run a script. It clearly distinguishes this diagnostic tool from operational siblings such as photoshop_get_state, photoshop_get_layers, and ps_execute_script.

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?

It explicitly defines when to use the tool: once at session start and after extendscript_timeout until it succeeds. It also defines when not to use it and names the alternative, photoshop_get_state, after a successful ping, plus warns not to call get_state/get_layers while ping is failing.

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