photoshop_list_documents

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the non-obvious side effect (each tab is briefly activated to read artboard_count, then the original active document is restored) and stating 'Preconditions: none (safe when zero documents open)'. This usefully explains why readOnlyHint is false despite the operation being non-destructive. It does not cover failure/error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then clearly labeled Use when / Do NOT use when / Returns / Preconditions / Side effects sections. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; there is 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full return shape, the precondition state, and the side-effect caveat, which is everything an agent needs to call this zero-argument tool safely and interpret its result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still documents the return payload fields (id, name, width, height, saved, artboard_count, is_active), which is more than the schema requires.

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 (List) and resource (every open Photoshop document) and enumerates exactly what is returned (id, dimensions, saved flag, artboard_count, active tab). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like photoshop_get_document_info and photoshop_get_state, which it explicitly frames as the narrower alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' (multiple documents open, need document_id before switching/previewing/closing) and 'Do NOT use when' clauses that name the two competing tools. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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