photoshop_list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but the description never states this explicitly, nor does it mention whether the result is limited to the active document or all open ones beyond the phrase 'all open documents'. For a zero-parameter read tool the risk is low, so a 3 is fair.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. Every clause (open documents, IDs and names) 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, yet the description helpfully notes that IDs and names are returned. For a zero-param, low-complexity listing tool this is nearly sufficient; the only gap is routing versus photoshop_get_document_info.

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 per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing options that don't exist.

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 (List) and resource (open documents in Photoshop) plus the returned fields (IDs and names). It's clearly distinguishable from most siblings like photoshop_delete_layer or photoshop_flatten_image, but it doesn't address the potential overlap with photoshop_get_document_info, which also surfaces document metadata.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description — an agent can infer this is the entry point for enumerating open documents before acting on one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the get_document_info alternative for detailed per-document metadata.

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