Alinear y distribuir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't state whether this mutates layer positions irreversibly, what happens when 'to' is omitted vs 'artboard', whether it requires a selection, or whether distribution needs three or more layers. It also doesn't disclose that 'to' and 'artboard' interact (artboard target implies a specific artboard parameter).

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates targets. No filler, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity in a way that hurts the other dimensions.

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?

Seven parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 29% schema coverage. The description does not explain distribute semantics, the 'to' vs 'artboard' pair, or the layer reference format the schema partially documents. An agent could easily call it wrong (e.g., setting 'distribute' without enough layers, or omitting 'to' unintentionally).

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 only 29% (only 'doc', 'layers', and 'artboard' have inline descriptions). The description mentions the rectangle form {x,y,width,height}, which adds a bit of meaning, but it says nothing about 'distribute', 'artboard', 'layers', or the relationship between 'to' and 'artboard'. For 7 params at 29% coverage the description under-compensates.

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 specific operations (align layers to canvas/first/artboard/rect, distribute h/v) with the resource being layers, but is completely generic among 40+ siblings and never differentiates itself from related tools like ps_set_layer. An agent can infer the tool aligns/distributes, but gets no signal of when it beats neighbors.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is mentioned. The description only says what the tool does, leaving the agent to guess between this and ps_set_layer, ps_group, or transform-oriented siblings.

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