inspect_psd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses read-only behavior ('without writing anything') and lists the exact output fields, which is valuable. It lacks details on permissions, failure modes, or whether the PSD must already be loaded, preventing a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return fields, followed by the key usage instruction. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple inspection tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, usage context, and return fields. The only gap is parameter details, but overall it provides enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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% for the single 'psd' parameter. The description only mentions 'a PSD's' and adds no information about what the parameter expects (file path, identifier, format) or any constraints, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 'List' and resource 'a PSD's layers', and enumerates the returned fields (names, groups, visibility, blend, bounds, [tags]). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling import_psd by stating it does not write and should be run before import_psd.

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?

Explicitly says 'Run before import_psd', giving clear context for when to use it. It doesn't state when not to use it or name alternative inspection tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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