gegl_describe_operation

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. "Inspect" and "live" imply a read-only call requiring a running instance with an actual loaded image, but the description never states that this is non-destructive, what happens if layer_name is omitted or the layer is missing, or whether the schema reflects instance-specific values. For a tool with zero annotation coverage these are material gaps.

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 wasted wording; the purpose and the motivating workflow both land immediately. It is arguably too terse given the parameter burden, but it is structurally clean.

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?

The tool takes three parameters with no documented schema, has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is one short sentence. An agent would not know what the returned schema looks like or how image_index and layer_name interact, which is insufficient for a live-instance inspection tool.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints that a layer is involved, loosely mapping to layer_name, but says nothing about the meaning of operation (the filter identifier) or image_index (how to choose among open images, and what the default 0 implies).

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 ("Inspect") and resource ("a live GEGL filter's property schema") scoped to a layer, which distinguishes it from sibling mutators like gegl_apply_filter and from enumerators like gegl_list_operations. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the read-of-a-schema framing is clear enough to separate it.

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 trailing clause "before applying it" implies a workflow position: call this prior to scheduling a GEGL filter. That is useful implied usage, but there is no explicit statement of when not to use it, nor a named alternative such as gegl_list_filters for discovery versus this per-operation schema lookup.

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