photoshop_ping

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only because it may trigger detection). The description goes far beyond that: the exact success string, the extendscript_timeout retry path, scratch_disk_full under 10 GB free, macOS Apple-event error codes with the osascript error, non-launch behavior, and optional FEEDBACK_NUDGE/UPDATE_AVAILABLE append blocks with their env-var toggles. This is unusually thorough behavioral disclosure.

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?

Long, but front-loaded and organized into Purpose / Use when / Do NOT use when / Returns / Preconditions / Side effects, so an agent can scan it. Nearly every sentence is a distinct, actionable failure mode, though the feedback/update nudge detail is somewhat auxiliary and could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values — and it does so for every documented outcome (success, timeout, scratch disk, connection failure, macOS resolution errors). Preconditions and side effects are stated explicitly, leaving no gap for a zero-parameter connectivity probe.

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 has no parameter surface to explain, and correctly focuses instead on return values and failure modes.

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 and resource: 'Verify that the Photoshop scripting engine can run a script.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming photoshop_get_state and photoshop_get_layers as the correct follow-ups once pinging succeeds.

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 when-to-use ('once at session start, and after extendscript_timeout until this call succeeds'), when-not-to-use ('on every tool call'), and a named alternative for the normal case. It even adds a conditional exclusion: do not call get_state or get_layers while the ping is still failing.

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