Recursos del documento

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses valuable behavioral content — it reports font install state, linked-file paths/libraries/lost-modified status, and detected problems, implying a diagnostic read operation — but never explicitly states that it is read-only and side-effect free, nor how results are returned.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that enumerates the covered resource categories compactly via parentheticals. It is dense but every clause adds a distinct category; no filler sentences.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives a thorough account of the returned information categories, which is the main thing an agent needs. It falls short only on explicit read-only confirmation and usage routing, which are minor here.

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%, so the single 'doc' parameter (name or 1-based index, defaulting to active) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 information-gathering purpose — reporting what resources a project uses and how they are defined — and enumerates the resource categories (fonts, linked files, smart objects, text colors, detected problems). An agent can tell this is a read/inspection tool distinct from mutation siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like ps_fonts or ps_document_info.

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: an agent can infer this is for auditing a document's assets, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance pointing to ps_fonts or ps_document_info as alternatives. The listing of covered categories implicitly scopes the tool.

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