photoshop_ping

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the payload contents (transport, version, bridge revision, active document, document count) — valuable since no output schema exists — but says nothing about failure behavior, such as what happens if Photoshop or the UXP bridge is unreachable.

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, front-loaded with the diagnostic content and followed by the usage constraint. No filler, nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 zero-param, non-destructive probe with no annotations or output schema, the definition covers what it checks, what it returns, and when to reach for it. The only gap is error/timeout semantics when the bridge is down — commonly the most important thing to know about a ping.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and 100% self-describing.

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?

Specific verb-plus-resource: 'Verify Photoshop/UXP readiness and report transport, version, bridge revision, active document and document count.' It distinguishes itself from single-value siblings like photoshop_get_version or photoshop_get_document_info by framing itself as a combined readiness probe, though it doesn't name those siblings 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?

'Use for route/bootstrap checks, not every call' gives both a positive trigger and an explicit exclusion, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of naming the concrete alternative tools to call instead for routine state reads.

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