photoshop_get_layers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the read-only nature and the scope (active document), but it does not state what happens if there is no active document, whether the operation is safe/non-mutating, or any rate limits. It stops short of explaining the return shape even though an output schema exists.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and then enumerates the returned fields efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, has output schema), the description is largely complete for its scope. It clearly states what is returned, and the output schema covers the return format. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that the operation is read-only, which would be useful context absent annotations.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not need to explain parameters, and it does not waste space on them. The slight deduction is for not leveraging the description to clarify the tool has no required inputs, which could help an agent confirm invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('layers') and enumerates exactly which layer attributes are returned (list, visibility, opacity, blend modes, pixel bounds). It is clearly distinguishable from read siblings like photoshop_get_document_info, though it does not name an alternative.

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 implies that this is a read-only inspection and that it operates on 'all layers in the active document', which implicitly sets context (no layer selection needed). However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as photoshop_get_document_info for document-level metadata.

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