ps_get_layers

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

With zero annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'tree of the active document' does establish it is a read of the currently open document, implying read-only and scoping. It does not say what happens with no open document, whether the tree is recursive into groups, or whether it is truncated for large documents.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the returned fields in parentheses. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

Listing the returned fields partially compensates for the missing output schema, which is the right instinct. But for a zero-param read with no annotations, it should still state the no-active-document behavior and how it differs from photoshop_get_layers.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed — the active document is the implicit target.

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?

Names the specific resource (layer tree of the active document) and enumerates the returned attributes (names, types, visibility, opacity, blend modes), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identically purposed sibling photoshop_get_layers, leaving genuine ambiguity about which to call.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the fact that it returns layer structure. With a duplicate-looking sibling in the toolset, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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