adobe_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add one genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: an unrecognized command blocks subsequent mutations, which warns of a side-effect on the session. But 'command' is undefined (the schema only has 'application' and 'session_id'), so the warning is hard to act on.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the read purpose front-loaded, so there is no padding. The trade-off is under-specification rather than verbosity: the trailing clause is cryptic and would benefit from one clarifying sentence naming what 'command' refers to.

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 described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a tool with a required enum parameter and an undocumented optional session handle, the description leaves key call-time questions unanswered and is too thin relative to its sibling set.

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 0% and the description names neither parameter. It never explains that 'application' is a required enum of photoshop/illustrator, nor what a null 'session_id' means (presumably a default session). With no schema documentation, the description needed to compensate here and does not.

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 verb 'read' plus the resource 'native document/layer identities' gives a rough sense of an inspection tool, and it is distinguishable from mutation siblings like adobe_edit_layers or adobe_export. However, 'identities' and 'native' are never defined, so an agent cannot tell whether this returns document IDs, layer names, or internal handles. The second clause about 'an unknown command' muddies rather than sharpens the purpose.

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 explicit statement of when to call this versus adobe_status or the other read-oriented siblings, and no prerequisites are named. The only implicit cue is that it is a read operation, which the annotations already say. The phrase 'blocks later mutations' hints that it should precede edits, but this is left for the agent to infer.

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