Detalle de una capa

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait beyond the schema, that raw=true expands the response to the complete descriptor, which tells the agent how output size/shape changes. It omits safety profile, error behavior (missing/ambiguous layer), and any permission or document-state requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with 'Todo sobre una capa:' followed by a dense but purposeful enumeration, and the raw flag note is placed last where a flag hint belongs. No filler sentences, though the single run-on sentence is heavy.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so well by enumerating what the agent will receive (text runs, effects, stroke, mask, smart object, blend). The main gap is the undocumented 'exact' parameter and any note on error handling for an unresolvable layer.

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 coverage is 50%: doc and layer are documented in the schema, while raw and exact are not. The description compensates for raw by explaining that raw=true adds the complete descriptor, but adds nothing for exact, and does not clarify the doc/layer selector semantics beyond the schema.

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 (informs/detalles) and resource (una capa) and enumerates the exact payload: text runs with font, real size, tracking, leading, color; effects; stroke; shape radii; mask; smart object; blend. That enumeration makes the scope unmistakable. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. ps_layers or ps_text_info) to differentiate from, so it is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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: you call this to inspect the detail of one already-identified layer. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when to prefer ps_layers or ps_text_info, and no prerequisites or exclusions given.

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