Ficha técnica del proyecto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the report's scope and one real limitation (layers are only reported 2 levels deep), but it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, what happens on timeout for a large file, or whether the document must already be open.

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 front-loaded sentences; the lead clause names the deliverable before the dense enumeration of contents. The parenthetical list is long but each item (fonts, linked, CC libraries, embedding, problems) is informative rather than 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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema report tool, the description does the necessary work of telling the agent what the returned text contains and what it does not cover (layer depth is capped at 2). Good coverage of return content, though depth/format of the text is unspecified.

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% and the single 'doc' parameter is already documented ('nombre o índice desde 1, por defecto el activo'). The description adds no parameter detail at all, so it neither helps nor harms — baseline 3 applies.

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 deliverable — 'un solo informe en texto' — and enumerates its contents (document config, resources, 2-level layer structure, design definition). This implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower siblings ps_document_info, ps_resources and ps_layers, but none of them are named explicitly.

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?

'Es lo primero que conviene leer al recibir un PSD ajeno' gives a clear situational trigger for using the tool (orientation on an unfamiliar PSD). It does not state when not to use it, nor does it point to alternative siblings for narrower needs.

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