photoshop_host_describe

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

The description explicitly states 'Side effects: none,' which aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It also adds useful behavioral context by emphasizing 'live' UXP bridge state and 'exact' runtime versions, indicating this is a real-time introspection rather than a cached report.

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 entire description is one tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the target resource, the specific details returned, and explicitly confirms the side-effect profile.

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 zero parameters, read-only/idempotent annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide whether and how to invoke the tool. No return-value explanation is needed because an output schema exists.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-semantic burden on the description. The empty schema already fully covers the input contract, and the description appropriately focuses on the resource being described rather than fabricated parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') with a clearly bounded resource: the installed Photoshop host, UXP bridge, runtime API versions, and pairing state. This scope distinguishes it from siblings like photoshop_pairing_begin or photoshop_capability_list, even without naming them.

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 wording implies clear context: use this when you need host-level runtime information, API versions, or pairing status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to route to it correctly.

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