photoshop_list_guides

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it conveys that this is a read of the active document's guides, which implies non-mutating behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only safety, behavior when no document is open, or the empty-list case, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs the returned fields without filler. 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields (index, orientation, pixel/normalized position) is genuinely useful and covers the return shape. It is nearly complete for a one-optional-param read tool, only missing error/empty-state behavior.

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 document_id already documents the verify-active/fail-closed semantics in detail. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for this parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 guides) and enumerates the returned fields (index, orientation, pixel and normalized position), scoped to the active document. No sibling tool lists guides, so an agent can identify it unambiguously from the tool list.

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 'for the active document' implies the usage context, but the description never states when to use this versus photoshop_get_state or photoshop_list_documents, nor any preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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