photoshop_get_preview

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. It hints at a filesystem side effect via "materialized filesystem copy" but never states that this is a non-destructive read of the document, whether the preview is returned inline or only written to disk, or how failures behave — the critical fail-closed semantics are absent from 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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the optional variations trailing. No filler, nothing to trim.

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?

With seven parameters, a nested focus_region object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should say more about what comes back (inline image block vs. file path, and any metadata) and about the destructive/read-only profile. The schema rescues most parameter detail, but the return contract is left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's mention of a "local focus crop" and "materialized filesystem copy" loosely maps to focus_region and materialize_path but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents in detail.

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 and resource: "Capture a JPEG preview of the active/pinned document," plus the optional variations (focus crop, materialized copy). No sibling tool captures previews, so it is distinguishable, though the description never names an alternative or scope boundary explicitly.

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?

"active/pinned document" implies the operational constraint (it works on the currently active document, or one pinned via document_id), but the description gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and does not address the fail-closed behavior when a different tab is active — that detail lives only in the schema.

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