Render the current Photoshop document as a merged, downscaled preview image to inspect your work; optionally specify document name or maxSize.
Photoshop: render the current document (merged, downscaled to maxSize px) and return it as an image to check your work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxSize | No | ||
| document | No | Document name; omit for the active document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the render is flattened/merged and downscaled, which explains why the preview is non-destructive to the document, but it omits the returned image format and any size/performance limits. Useful context beyond annotations, though not rich.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the output and constraints following. Nothing redundant except the redundant "Photoshop:" host prefix.
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?
Two optional parameters, full annotation coverage, no output schema — yet the description still explains what comes back (an image) and how it is produced (merged, downscaled). Sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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 50% and the undocumented parameter is maxSize (bare "integer" in schema); the description supplies its meaning and unit by saying the document is downscaled to maxSize px. The document parameter is covered by the schema itself (omit for active document), so the combined coverage leaves little ambiguity.
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 and resource (render the current document) plus the output form (an image) and the scope constraints (merged, downscaled to maxSize px). An agent can tell this is a preview/check tool rather than an export or save tool, though it never names the sibling it displaces (e.g. ps_exportLayers, ps_saveDocument).
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?
"to check your work" implies the use case (visual verification after edits) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of what to use instead for full-resolution output. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.