photoshop_get_document_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only implies read-only via 'Read'. It doesn't say what happens when no document is open, what fields are returned, or that passing document_id fails closed rather than switching tabs (that is only in the schema).

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 is efficient, though the terseness leaves substantive gaps that conciseness alone can't excuse.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should describe what information is returned and the no-active-document case. Neither is covered, leaving the agent to guess the response shape and error behavior.

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 100% and the single optional document_id parameter is documented thoroughly, including fail-closed semantics. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a concrete verb ('Read information') and resource ('active Photoshop document'), so the agent knows it's a passive inspection call. It does not differentiate from close siblings like photoshop_get_state, photoshop_list_documents, or photoshop_get_layers, which all read related document data, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the sentence alone.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over photoshop_get_state or photoshop_list_documents, and no stated preconditions such as requiring an open document. The only conditional behavior (document_id verification) lives in the schema, not the description.

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