photoshop_command_describe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral value by specifying the output content—schemas, prerequisites, risk, approval, verification, and rollback contract—which is not conveyed by the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and enumerates the key aspects. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema (which likely details the return structure), the description provides adequate context about what the tool does. However, it does not mention that command_id is required (though that is in the schema) or any prerequisites like needing an active Photoshop pairing. It is reasonably complete but could offer a hint about typical usage scenarios.

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 0%, meaning the parameter command_id has no description in the schema. The description does not explicitly explain what command_id represents beyond the implied meaning from the tool name and description ('one command'). It lacks details such as how to obtain a valid command_id or example values. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's action (describe) and target resource (one command), and enumerates the specific aspects it covers: schemas, prerequisites, risk, approval, verification, and rollback contract. This differentiates it from sibling tools like photoshop_command_search (search) and photoshop_command_execute (execute), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies usage when an agent needs detailed contract information about a command before execution, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like photoshop_command_search or photoshop_command_execute. There is no explicit when-not or alternative routing, leaving some inference to the agent.

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