ps_list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('list document names') without mentioning the output format (e.g., array vs. comma-separated), potential error conditions, or the read-only nature (which is not explicitly stated). The description does not go beyond the bare operation, leaving the agent to guess about return structure.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. No filler or redundant wording; it is front-loaded and directly serves the agent's decision-making.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate: it clearly specifies what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., a list of strings), which would be helpful since the output schema is absent. Still, the description is sufficient for a straightforward list tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty object. Per the baseline for zero parameters, the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It correctly communicates that no arguments are required. The description adds no unnecessary detail, and the schema fully covers this aspect.

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 ('list') and resource ('documents currently open in Photoshop'), clearly distinguishing it from the Illustrator sibling `ai_list_documents`. No ambiguity: the name and description together uniquely identify the target tool.

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 phrase 'currently open in Photoshop' implies the use case (when the agent needs to query open Photoshop documents). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as pointing to `ai_list_documents` for Illustrator. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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