photoshop_capability_list

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

Annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those hints by defining 'supported' as 'locally verified' and stating that unverified and unavailable commands are never executed, which is safety-relevant behavior for an agent deciding whether to proceed.

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 with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the safety-relevant definition follows immediately. 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?

With an output schema and read-only annotations, the description does not need to explain return shape or safety. However, it lacks parameter guidance and explicit sibling differentiation, so an agent gets the gist but not enough to confidently use the filters or choose between this and command_search.

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 0% and the description provides almost no parameter-level detail. The only partial value is clarifying the meaning of the 'supported' status value and the safety of unavailable/unverified ones; query, category, and summary_only remain unexplained by the description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the versioned command catalog,' which clearly identifies a read-only enumeration of available commands. It distinguishes itself from sibling command_search/command_describe by being a list rather than a search or detail view, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tools.

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 primary use case is implied: call this to see the command catalog and check supported status. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over command_search or command_describe, nor does it provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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