photoshop_list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'read-only', 'Side effects: none', and 'Preconditions: none (safe when zero documents open)', covering safety and side-effect concerns. It also specifies the return JSON shape, which is additional behavioral context beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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 compact yet comprehensive. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage conditions, return format, and safety details in a structured bullet-like layout. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description covers all essential aspects: the returned JSON structure, preconditions, side effects, and clear use cases. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because there is nothing to document. This is appropriate; no further value could be added.

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 ('List') with a precise resource ('every open Photoshop document') and explicitly notes the returned fields (id, dimensions, active tab). It also labels the operation as read-only, which clearly distinguishes it from mutation tools. The sibling list includes many similar-sounding tools, but this one is unambiguous about scope and output.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' conditions, naming the alternative tools (photoshop_get_document_info and photoshop_get_state) and the exact scenario where they should be used instead. This is textbook guidance for tool selection.

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