live_list_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the tool depends on the bridge being started and reads current live GIMP state. 'List' implies a non-mutating operation, and the output schema covers return structure, so this is transparent enough for a simple read-only tool.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the required setup immediately after. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter live listing tool, the description covers what it does, the environment prerequisite, and leaves return details to the output schema. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, this is appropriately handled.

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 a specific resource ('images currently open in the running GIMP'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is naturally distinguishable from sibling tools like crop_image, gimp_status, and inspect_image.

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?

It clearly conveys that this tool is for querying the current live set of open images in GIMP, and it flags the prerequisite of the bridge plug-in. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the zero-parameter live-listing purpose is self-evident enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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