photoshop_ping

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: exact success string, extendscript_timeout retry semantics, scratch_disk_full tied to <10 GB free on the OS drive, failure-without-launching behavior, and the FEEDBACK_NUDGE / UPDATE_AVAILABLE blocks with their env-var opt-outs. This is far more than structured fields convey.

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 tightly organized under explicit labels (Use when, Do NOT use when, Returns, Preconditions, Side effects), with the decision-relevant routing information front-loaded. The environment-variable and nudge details are the only verbose passages, and they help interpret anomalous output.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values — it enumerates the success string and each failure mode (timeout, scratch_disk_full, not-installed/not-running) plus the two optional appended blocks. Preconditions and side effects are stated explicitly. Nothing an agent needs to interpret a result is missing.

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 per the baseline there is nothing to document and no ambiguity to resolve. No param-level value could be added here, and none is needed.

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+resource ('Verify that the Photoshop scripting engine can run a script') and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings, naming photoshop_get_state and photoshop_get_layers as the follow-on tools. An agent can tell exactly what this does and where it sits in the workflow without opening any schema.

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' (once at session start, and after extendscript_timeout until success) and 'Do NOT use when' (not on every tool call; do not call get_state or get_layers while ping is failing) guidance. The alternative and the condition that selects it are both named.

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