photoshop_list_fonts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'without changing Photoshop' declares the read-only safety profile, and it discloses the return payload (font records, total count, truncation state). It stops short of stating that 'truncation state' pairs with the limit cap or how to retrieve more, which would have made it a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and filter scope front-loaded before the return-value note. Every clause 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?

A simple two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, and the description covers purpose, filtering, read-only behavior, and the shape of the response. Adequate for correct invocation; only the limit/truncation interaction 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 both parameters are already documented in structured form. The description echoes the filter semantics (name/family/PostScript) but adds no new syntax or format detail, and says nothing about the limit/max behavior beyond what the schema gives.

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 (List) and resource (Photoshop fonts) with scope (optional filtering by name/family/PostScript name). The resource itself cleanly separates it from siblings like photoshop_list_brush_presets and photoshop_list_documents, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 'optionally filtered' communicates when to supply a filter versus listing everything, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative tools, so routing still requires the agent's own judgment.

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