gimp_image_info

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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add what fields come back, which is useful. However, it does not explain the parameter's default (image_id null presumably meaning the active image) or any failure mode.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that lists exactly the returned fields with no padding or redundancy. Efficient, though it could carry one more clause on the id parameter without bloating.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration usefully describes the return payload, and the read-only annotations cover safety. But the omission of image_id's default/active-image semantics leaves a meaningful gap an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% and the single image_id parameter is never mentioned. Crucially, the nullable default of image_id is undocumented, so the agent can't tell that omitting it targets the active/current image, leaving a real semantic gap.

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?

Names a specific resource and enumerates the returned detail (size, mode, resolution, selection, layer tree with ids), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It doesn't distinguish itself from related introspection siblings like gimp_status, gimp_filter_info, or gimp_pdb_info, but the verb+resource+content list is clear.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing away from alternatives such as gimp_list_images or gimp_status. The agent must infer the call context entirely.

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