photoshop_auto_levels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the mutation target (the active layer) but nothing about whether the change is destructive or undoable, what happens with no active layer, or whether it errors on adjustment layers. For a no-annotation image mutation, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the target front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the zero-parameter schema is trivially complete. However, with no annotations and no sibling routing, the description leaves the mutation's risk profile and usage context unstated, which is thin for a destructive editing operation.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document and the schema coverage baseline of 4 applies. The description's mention of the active layer is the only implicit input, and it is stated.

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 names a specific verb and effect ("Apply Auto Levels") plus the target ("the active layer"), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling selection tools. It does not, however, distinguish it from the closely related photoshop_adjust_curves_auto or photoshop_auto_contrast, so sibling differentiation is left to the agent.

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 guidance on when to use Auto Levels versus auto_contrast or curves_auto, nor any stated prerequisite such as needing a pixel layer selected. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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