gimp_filter_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the two-mode branching and the fact that the detailed mode returns name/type/default/range/description. It does not mention result size, pagination, or cost of a broad query, so it goes modestly past the annotations without being rich.

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, front-loaded with the mode distinction, zero filler. Each clause maps to a distinct parameter behavior, so every sentence earns its place.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only query tool with no output schema, the description supplies the mode logic, the filter semantics, and a partial inventory of the returned fields. The remaining gap is error/empty-result behavior and the fact that `query` and `operation` are mutually weighted, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it largely does: `query` is a substring filter over available GEGL operations, and `operation` is the selector that switches the call from listing to property introspection. This compensates well for the empty schema titles, though it doesn't state that both are optional or what happens with an unmatched query/unknown operation.

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 and resource: it lists GEGL operations filtered by `query`, or, when `operation` is supplied, displays that operation's properties (name, type, default, range, description). This is clearly distinguishable from CRUD siblings like gimp_open_image or gimp_delete_layer, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with near neighbors such as gimp_pdb_search or gimp_apply_filter.

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 does describe the two internal modes and the condition that selects each (`operation` present vs absent), which is real usage guidance for the tool itself. However, it gives no guidance on when to reach for this tool instead of the related discovery tools (gimp_pdb_search, gimp_pdb_info, gimp_list_resources), so alternative selection is left to inference.

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