Configuración del documento

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly implies a read-only inspection of document settings and lists the returned categories, but it never explicitly confirms it is non-destructive, requires no special permissions, or returns a structured payload.

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 front-loaded sentence that begins with the overall scope ('Todo lo que define el proyecto:') followed by an efficient list of contents. The listing is dense but appropriate for an info tool, with no wasted filler.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the description must convey what is returned, and it does so comprehensively by enumerating document properties and features. It is weaker on usage, permissions, and raw-parameter effects, but those are largely covered by the 100% schema coverage.

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%, with both doc and raw fully documented in the schema (including the default active document and raw full Photoshop descriptor). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 enumerates what the tool surfaces (size, resolution, mode, depth, profile, guides, artboards, channels, paths, comps, layer counts, history), making the resource clear. However, it is a noun phrase without an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'obtiene', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling info tools such as ps_layers or ps_history.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ps_project_report, ps_status, or ps_layers. The only usage-like statement is the schema note that doc defaults to the active document, which is not in the description itself.

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