photoshop_get_brush_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation. It also enumerates the returned setting categories, though it omits prerequisite details such as requiring an active document or brush.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes to identifying the tool or the data it returns.

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 zero-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description is nearly complete because it describes the returned setting categories. The main gap is the lack of prerequisite context, such as whether an active Photoshop document or brush is required.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable; the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, which is appropriate for a no-argument getter.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and a clearly scoped resource ('active Photoshop paint-brush settings'), then names the setting categories returned. It distinguishes itself implicitly from preset-listing tools by specifying 'active' settings, though it does not name a sibling alternative.

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 implied by 'active' settings and 'used for digital painting', but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons with siblings such as photoshop_list_brush_presets. The agent can infer this is for inspecting the current brush, but routing is not stated.

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