photoshop_list_fonts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does this well. It explicitly states 'Side effects: none,' which is a clear safety signal. It also discloses that the first call may be slow (app.fonts.length can exceed 1000), and it details the return structure: fonts array with fields, total count, and truncated flag. This is comprehensive 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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the primary action, follows with usage guidance and a key note about PostScript names, then provides return information and side effects. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to scan and extract the essential information quickly.

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 font-listing tool, the description is complete. It explains when to use it, what it returns (including the truncated flag), that it has no side effects, and that the first call may be slow. It also connects to related tools (create_text_layer, set_text_font) and clarifies how the output should be used. The optional document_id behavior is documented in the schema, so no additional description is needed.

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 100%: each parameter (limit, query, document_id) has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 verb and resource: 'List installed fonts available to Photoshop.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling text-manipulation tools by focusing on font enumeration. It also mentions its role in supporting photoshop_create_text_layer and photoshop_set_text_font, which reinforces its unique purpose.

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 explicitly states 'Use when: choosing a font for photoshop_create_text_layer or photoshop_set_text_font.' This is a clear trigger for when the tool is appropriate. It also gives a note about PostScript names, guiding how the output should be consumed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention any alternatives, so it falls slightly short of the top tier.

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