photoshop_select_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet 'Select the entire document' essentially restates the tool name. It fails to disclose that the operation replaces any existing selection, that Photoshop's Select All operates on the active layer's pixels within canvas bounds rather than all layer content, or any side effects on subsequent tool calls.

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?

Six words, front-loaded, with zero filler. Every word earns its place and the single sentence fully states the core action 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 one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the ambiguity about what 'entire document' means (active layer vs. all layers) and the absence of notes about selection replacement leave gaps that, given zero annotations, a more complete description should have addressed.

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%, and the document_id parameter already has a thorough schema-level description explaining that it is optional, where to obtain it, and that setting it activates the document first to prevent UI tab-switch retargeting. The description itself adds no parameter detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Select') and a clear resource/scope ('the entire document'), distinguishing it from sibling selection tools like photoshop_select_rectangle, photoshop_select_ellipse, and photoshop_select_subject, which target regions or subjects. Minor ambiguity remains in whether 'entire document' means all layers or the active layer's full canvas, but the basic action is unmistakable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of exclusions, and no reference to alternatives. With roughly 100 siblings including a whole family of selection tools (deselect, invert_selection, expand_selection, select_subject, etc.), the description gives the agent zero routing help for choosing this tool over them.

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