photoshop_get_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and 'without mutation' usefully declares read-only safety semantics. However it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or what a history state contains — the fail-closed behavior only appears in the schema, not the description.

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 short sentence with zero waste, putting the read-only constraint front and center. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 one-optional-param read tool this is close to adequate, but there is no output schema and the description never indicates what a 'history state' record looks like or in what order states are returned. An agent knows what it will do, but not what it will get back.

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 document_id description already explains the optional id, the fail-closed verification, and the no-auto-switch guarantee in detail. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies rather than a higher score.

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 ('read') and resource ('active document history states'), plus the key scope constraint that only the active document is involved. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like photoshop_get_state or photoshop_get_document_info, so an agent must infer why it would pick history over state.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The 'active document' phrasing hints that non-active documents are out of scope, but the choice between this and photoshop_get_state / photoshop_get_layers is left entirely to inference.

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