gimp_pdb_search

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 safe-read profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful scope information (plugins and Script-Fu are included) but omits anything about result size, the limit default of 50, or pagination behavior.

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 tight sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded before the qualifier. It earns its place, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with two undocumented parameters.

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 low-complexity read tool with safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is searched. It falls short on the limit parameter, matching semantics, and how results should be fed into gimp_pdb_call/gimp_pdb_info, which an agent would likely need.

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 parameter burden. 'por nombre' loosely explains the required query parameter but says nothing about matching semantics (substring, regex, case sensitivity), and the limit parameter is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (Busca) and resource (procedimientos de la PDB de GIMP) and even scopes the search space to include plugins and Script-Fu. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools gimp_pdb_info and gimp_pdb_call, leaving the agent to infer the search-vs-inspect-vs-invoke distinction.

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 never says when to use this tool versus gimp_pdb_info or gimp_pdb_call, which are clearly part of the same workflow. The only usage signal is implicit in the word 'Busca', so the agent gets no routing guidance for the discovery-then-invoke pattern.

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