photoshop_get_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Report' weakly implies a read-only call, but it does not state whether it contacts Photoshop or the UXP bridge, whether the call is safe or cached, or any side effects; it only names the high-level payload.

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 with no filler. It states the payload immediately and does not waste words.

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 diagnostic tool it conveys the two main return categories, which is enough to know why to call it. However, with no output schema, it leaves the actual return shape and how bridge availability is represented unspecified.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter meanings to explain and the empty schema is self-contained. Baseline 4 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?

The description names a specific verb (Report) and a specific resource (version-derived Photoshop feature flags and current UXP bridge availability). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from capability-related siblings such as photoshop_guard_capabilities or photoshop_get_painting_method_capabilities.

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 guidance on when to call this versus photoshop_get_version, photoshop_guard_capabilities, or painting-method capability tools. The reporting purpose weakly implies a diagnostic use, but no alternatives, preconditions, or exclusions are named.

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