photoshop_get_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'Side effects: none' and 'Preconditions: active document', and it lists the return structure. It does not go into edge cases (e.g., behavior with no active document) but covers the essential safety and effect profile for a read-only list operation.

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 tight, well-organized block: purpose, usage guidance, return summary, preconditions, and side effects are each given one concise line. It front-loads the core action and avoids fluff. Every sentence contributes to the agent's decision-making.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description explains the return values (layerCount, layers array, context) at a summary level. It also states preconditions and side effects. It could be more explicit about the shape of 'layers' or error conditions, but for a simple list tool with one optional parameter, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 sole parameter, document_id, is fully documented in the input schema (including its purpose and when it activates the document). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness.

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 opens with a specific action ('List all layers') and a concrete resource ('in the active document'), then enumerates the exact fields returned (kind, visibility, opacity). It also differentiates itself from photoshop_get_state in the usage section, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' guidance is provided, with a named alternative (photoshop_get_state) and the condition that selects it. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool versus lighter or heavier options.

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