Ver el diseño

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers two important behaviors: it renders a duplicate so the original file is untouched (non-destructive), and it returns an image back to the agent. It omits other traits such as whether unsaved edits are reflected, but the core safety profile is disclosed.

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 the core action and return value, followed by the non-destructive note and a dense options list. No filler sentences, though the option list is compressed into a single run-on clause.

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 an 11-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior but leaves gaps: image format, quality, and padding are unexplained, and it does not detail the returned image beyond "te devuelve la imagen." Adequate but incomplete for the parameter surface.

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 only 45%, so the description must compensate. It explains crop (px zone), layer/artboard (crop to that layer) and showOnly/hide/show (isolate layers), but says nothing about format, quality, or padding, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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 and resource: renders the document (or part) and returns the image, which clearly separates it from a status or info tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ps_export, which also produces visual output, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"Úsala después de cada cambio importante" gives a concrete use context, telling the agent to preview after significant edits. It provides no exclusions or explicit alternatives (e.g. when to use ps_export instead), so it falls short of the top tier.

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