Capturar estilo de una capa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation reads style attributes and optionally persists them under a name (a state-changing side effect), which is useful. However it does not cover permissions, what happens on name collision, or the return shape of the recipe, leaving clear gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the persistence behavior. No filler, though the effects:{recipe} reference assumes prior knowledge.

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 3-parameter read/capture tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description conveys the essential behavior (what is read, the recipe output, and optional saving). It stops short of clarifying sibling relationships and edge cases, so not a 5.

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 100%, so the schema already documents `doc`, `name`, and `layer`. The description mainly restates the `name` behavior already in the schema and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, matching the baseline 3.

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 (lee/captura) and resource (efectos, mezcla, relleno, tipografía de una capa), and explains it produces a reusable recipe. It does not distinguish itself from the similar-sounding sibling ps_style_get or ps_style_analyze, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

It implies usage by noting that passing `name` saves the recipe into the active style for later use via effects:{recipe}, which is helpful context. But it never says when to use this instead of ps_style_get, ps_style_list, or ps_style_analyze, so the guidance is only implicit.

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