ps_get_active_info

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 clearly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation by saying '获取信息' (get info), and it lists the exact data returned. However, it does not disclose behavior in edge cases such as no active document, nor does it specify the response format.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then lists all relevant information fields. Every word adds value and there is no redundant or vague content.

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?

For a zero-parameter getter tool, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what information it returns. It could be slightly more complete by noting the return format or behavior when no document is active, but the core context an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 has zero parameters, and with a schema coverage of 100%, there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 specifies the verb '获取' (get), the resource '当前活动文档信息' (current active document info), and enumerates exactly what fields are returned: name, pixel dimensions, resolution, color mode, layer count, and active layer name. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like ps_list_documents and ai_get_active_info by explicitly naming Photoshop and the active document scope.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where the active document might not exist, nor does it contrast with ps_list_documents or ai_get_active_info. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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