ps_runAction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds a useful prerequisite behavior (loadAtn must load the .atn first) and notes third-party action packs are supported, but it does not warn that a recorded action can arbitrarily mutate the document, nor say what happens when the action/set is missing.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the application and the core operation, then appends the parameter mapping and the loadAtn prerequisite. No filler.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the operation, the identifying parameters, and the .atn prerequisite. Minor remaining gaps are error behavior on unknown action/set and the side-effect scope of an action, but nothing essential to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are three undocumented parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: 'action name + set name' maps clearly to action and set, and 'loadAtn loads an .atn file first' explains the optional third parameter's role and ordering. Only the exact string format/expectations for names is left unstated.

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 and resource — playing a recorded action from Photoshop's Actions panel — and clarifies the name+set identification model. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ps_actionManager (or ai_runAction for Illustrator), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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: use it to replay a recorded action, and use loadAtn to load an .atn file first. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement of what to do if the action or set does not exist, and no named alternative among siblings such as ps_runMenuCommand or ps_actionManager.

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