Ejecutar ExtendScript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real runtime context: the JS dialect (ES3), that `code` must be a function body that uses `return`, and which helpers are injected (A, U, AM, VZ). It still omits failure/error behavior, default timeout, and the fact that arbitrary code execution is inherently side-effecting.

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 core capability and the function-body contract are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the variable list is a compact tail. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the trailing 'Variables: ...' fragment could be integrated more cleanly.

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 tool that executes arbitrary code with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested `args` object, the description covers the invocation mechanics well but is silent on timeout defaults, error propagation, and the `history` parameter. Adequate to call it, but not complete enough for a high-risk execution tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `code` (function body, return semantics) and effectively maps `args` to the injected A variable, but leaves `history` and `timeoutSeconds` completely undefined in both schema and description, so two of four parameters remain opaque.

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 (executes) and resource (ExtendScript/JS ES3 code inside Photoshop) with scope ('acceso total a app, documentos, capas'). It is clearly distinct from data-inspection siblings like ps_status or ps_layers, but it never names the closest alternative, ps_run_script_file, so the agent must infer the code-body-vs-file distinction on its own.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'acceso total' signals this is the power-user escape hatch, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as ps_run_script_file, ps_action_manager, or ps_batch. An agent can infer a rough context but not the boundaries.

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