ps_fill_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the fill overwrites existing layer pixels, that an active layer must exist, or whether the operation is destructive/undoable. It only describes the action and the RGB inputs.

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 operation and scope, followed by a short clause explaining the RGB parameters. There is no redundant or extraneous content.

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 simple three-parameter fill operation, the description provides the essential context: target (current active layer), scope (full canvas), and color inputs. It lacks explicit statements about overwriting behavior and preconditions, but given the tool's simplicity and the fully documented schema, the description is mostly complete.

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 100%: each parameter (r/g/b) is already documented as '红/绿/蓝 0-255'. The description adds only that r/g/b are RGB values, which is already present in the schema, so it provides no significant additional meaning.

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 states a specific action: 'fill the current active layer with the specified color (full canvas fill)'. This clearly identifies the target resource (active layer), the operation (fill), and the scope (entire canvas), distinguishing it from siblings like ps_set_foreground_color and ps_add_text_layer.

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 its intended usage: call it when you want to fill the currently active layer across the full canvas. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not compare itself to alternative tools, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and sibling list.

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