photoshop_geometry_calculate

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most important traits: the computation is deterministic and it 'creates no Photoshop history', i.e. no document mutation. It also notes that provenance must be supplied exactly by the caller. It omits failure behavior (e.g. near-parallel handling) and result shape, keeping it below 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 tightly written sentences with zero filler; the core identity (pure deterministic geometry, no side effects) is front-loaded before the caller-input detail.

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?

This is an 11-parameter multi-operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain what each operation returns and which inputs it needs. Instead it gives only a general statement, leaving the agent unable to map operations to inputs or interpret results.

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 27% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It mentions lines, points, polygons and source-frame provenance in general terms, but says nothing about axis, value, tolerance_px, near_parallel_threshold, or which parameters each of the 10 operations actually consumes.

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+resource: 'pure deterministic source-pixel geometry' that performs computations on caller-supplied line endpoints, points and polygons. It clearly is not a detection or editing tool, which separates it from sibling analysis/mutation tools. It stops short of naming the actual operations (line_equation, corridor_section, etc.) available in the enum.

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?

The 'Scene Geometry Model / Geometry Preflight work' framing gives implied context, and the disclaimer that no semantic detection occurs hints this is for measurement-style work rather than detection. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as photoshop_measure_points, photoshop_transform_landmarks or photoshop_compare_landmarks.

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