photoshop_get_selection_bounds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does state that the operation is read-only and returns document pixels. It does not disclose important behavior such as what happens when there is no active selection or the coordinate origin, leaving meaningful gaps for a read helper.

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 wasted words. It communicates the core action, resource, units, and read-only nature efficiently.

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 read tool this is close to sufficient, but it has no output schema and does not describe the returned bounds shape, such as whether it includes x, y, width, and height. The agent can infer the general result, but return-value semantics are left underspecified.

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 the single optional document_id parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema states, which is acceptable at baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 precise resource, "active pixel selection bounds," and clarifies units as document pixels. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby sibling tools such as geometry or measurement utilities.

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?

The phrase "active pixel selection bounds" implies the tool is used when the current Photoshop document has a live selection. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give exclusions such as behavior when no selection exists.

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