ps_getState

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it spans all open documents plus the active one, which is useful scope context. It does not disclose what happens with zero open documents, nor that the full layer tree may make the payload heavy.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource appears before the field enumeration. It reads as a compressed fragment rather than prose, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden — and its field enumeration does that well, covering document metadata and layer tree contents. Missing only edge-case behavior (no open documents, multi-document response structure) for a fully complete picture.

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 description coverage is 100% — the single 'document' parameter already documents 'omit for the active document.' The phrase 'open documents and the active document' in the description echoes the default behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource ('Photoshop open documents and the active document') and enumerates exactly what state is returned — size, resolution, mode, bit depth, path, saved flag, layer tree, active layer. The 'Photoshop:' prefix separates it from the Illustrator/After Effects/Premiere getState siblings. It lacks an explicit verb, but the field list makes the read intent unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the read-all-document-state tool, but nothing says when to prefer it over ps_getDescriptor, ps_preview, or ps_layerOps for layer-specific queries. No exclusions or preconditions (e.g., requiring an open document) are given.

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