gimp_list_resources

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. The description adds that listing is scoped to resource kinds and text filtering, but says nothing about pagination via limit or what a returned entry looks like.

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 with no filler; the verb, resource, scope, and filter mechanism all appear before any trailing clause.

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 read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is serviceable but thin: limit behavior and the shape of returned resources are undocumented, and the Spanish-only text may not match the English tool naming convention.

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 load. It clarifies the text-filter semantics of query and the resource scope of kind (though that largely repeats the enum), but leaves limit, the pagination control, entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista recursos de GIMP') and enumerates the resource kinds, which cleanly separates it from gimp_list_images and gimp_pdb_search. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent can infer that this is a discovery step before e.g. gimp_add_text or gimp_gradient, but nothing in the text says so.

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