ps_do_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it executes an action, but does not describe the effects on the document, whether it is destructive, reversible, or requires specific state. The agent is left unaware of side effects or the nature of the operation beyond the literal execution.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose first and then clarifies the parameters. There is no wasted wording, and it is immediately clear what the tool does. The structure is exemplary for a simple tool.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description must fully explain the tool's context. It fails to mention that the action is applied to the active document, whether any prerequisites exist, or what the response/return value is. For a tool that likely mutates the document, this is a significant gap, making the description incomplete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already describes both parameters fully: 'action' is the action name and 'from' is the optional action set name. The description repeats this information verbatim ('action 为动作名，from 为动作集名') without adding additional meaning or examples. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '在 Photoshop 中执行一个已安装的动作（Action）' (execute an installed Action in Photoshop), with specific parameters explained. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only one that executes actions, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The verb 'execute' and resource 'Action' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites (e.g., a document must be open, the action must exist). The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No exclusions or sibling references are given.

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