photoshop_list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important side-effect guarantee that no tab is activated, plus that the active document is included in the result, but says nothing about ordering, permissions, or cost of the call.

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. Every clause (scope, returned fields, non-mutation guarantee) earns its place.

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 a zero-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the essential facts: what is enumerated, what fields come back, and which document is active. It could be more complete only by comparing itself to photoshop_get_document_info or describing result ordering.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly describes a call with no inputs rather than inventing filtering options that do not exist in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List all open Photoshop documents') and names the payload returned (ids, dimensions, active document). It is clearly distinct from the singular sibling photoshop_get_document_info, though it never names that alternative 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?

Usage is only implied: 'without changing tabs' signals a safe, side-effect-free enumeration suitable for discovery before other operations. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to photoshop_get_document_info for single-document detail.

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