photoshop_command_search

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavior about locale-independence and supported search text types, which supplements the annotations. However, it does not disclose matching behavior, result limits, or failure modes, so it stays at a moderate transparency level.

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 core purpose and search dimensions. There is no filler, and every phrase adds useful information.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema, and the annotations cover safety, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the relationship between 'query' and 'category' is ambiguous, and there is no guidance on expected search behavior or result scope, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to construct a valid call.

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%, so the description carries the semantic burden. It explains that query and category relate to English, Korean, or description text, but it does not clearly delineate how 'query' and 'category' interact or which values are expected for category. This is partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('locale-independent Photoshop command IDs'), and further clarifies the search dimensions (English, Korean, category, description text). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like photoshop_command_execute or photoshop_command_describe.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used before command_describe or command_execute, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage context is only implicit from the name and siblings.

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