photoshop_select_sky

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only notes that detection is AI-based and automatic. It does not say whether the result replaces an existing selection, what happens when no sky is detected, whether it needs an active document or internet access, or how long it takes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, restatement of the title, or redundant phrasing. Every clause 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 need not be explained, and with zero parameters the schema side is trivially covered. However, for a no-annotation AI tool the description omits failure behavior (no sky found) and whether the operation is destructive to an existing selection, leaving real gaps.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The single sentence does not waste space inventing parameter semantics that do not 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 ('detect and select') and resource ('the sky region') in one sentence, and the resource itself distinguishes it from siblings like photoshop_select_subject, photoshop_select_all, and photoshop_select_rectangle. An agent can route to it 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?

Usage is only implied: the description tells you what it selects, so an agent can infer it is for sky-targeted selections, but it names no alternatives (e.g. select_subject, harmonize_sky) and gives no preconditions such as requiring an open document containing sky. No explicit when/when-not guidance.

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