psd_to_pdf

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

The description discloses the flattening of layers, which is a relevant behavioral trait. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it doesn't mention output file handling, error conditions, or other side effects. It's adequate but minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose and a key behavior without any redundant words. It earns its place fully.

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 simple conversion tool, the description covers the essential action and the flattening behavior. The schema documents output naming, so not repeating it is acceptable. The minor schema error is compensated by the description's clarity about PSD input, making the tool usable for an agent.

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 100% (both params have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds indirect clarity by stating the input is PSD, which helps correct the schema's mistaken 'PDF file' description for 'file', but it doesn't explicitly detail parameter syntax or options.

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 clearly states the tool converts PSD to PDF and mentions the key side effect of flattening layers. The verb 'Convert' plus specific input (PSD) and output (PDF) makes it distinct from sibling conversion tools.

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?

The description implies usage (when you have a PSD and want a PDF) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. It doesn't name sibling tools or exclusions, so it falls short of a 4.

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