gegl_list_operations

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are paged, which is useful, but says nothing about ordering, what an invalid regex does, whether defaults apply, or what the call returns; a read-only listing is only implied by 'Discover'.

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 compact sentence with the resource and the two most decision-relevant qualifiers (paging, regex semantics) front-loaded. Nothing is redundant, though the semicolon clause is dense enough that it reads as two ideas compressed into one line.

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 simple read-only listing tool this is close to adequate: paging and pattern semantics are covered, and no output schema exists to describe. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the absence of return-shape and pagination-default details leaves a real gap.

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 mostly does not. It clarifies that 'pattern' is a case-insensitive regex, but 'limit' and 'offset' are only hinted at via the word 'paging', leaving their meaning and defaults undocumented outside the schema's bare defaults.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Discover installed GIMP 3.2 GEGL filters'. The version pin and paging mention make the scope concrete, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling 'gegl_list_filters', which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as gegl_list_filters, gegl_describe_operation, or gegl_apply_filter. The only implied usage cue is the regex-pattern filtering, which the agent must infer.

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