import_psd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: one slot per visible layer, exact canvas placement, PNGs cropped to content, blend modes mapped, hidden layers excluded. It omits what out_dir does, whether existing files are overwritten, scale effects, and error/permission behavior, so it is partial.

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 tight sentences with the core transformation front-loaded and zero filler. Dense jargon ('PNGs cropped to content', 'blend modes mapped') but every clause carries information.

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 7-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most parameters and all return/behavioral details unexplained. It is enough to understand the concept but not enough to invoke it correctly across its options.

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 for all 7 params, but it only clarifies one (origin: 'center' for symbols, 'bottom' for characters). psd, name, scale, out_dir, include_hidden, and groups_as_bones are left completely undefined.

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?

It states a concrete verb+resource transformation ('PSD → project: one slot per visible layer') and specifics the output structure, so an agent can tell it imports/converts a PSD rather than inspecting one. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from inspect_psd, the obvious sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative tools (e.g. inspect_psd for inspection). The only usage hint is embedded in the origin parameter ('for symbols', 'for characters'), which is parameter-level, not tool-level routing.

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