list_fonts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape ({fonts, count}), which is valuable since there is no output schema, but it never states that the call is read-only, has no side effects on the document, or how the filter interacts with server-side state.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a brief parameter note and a return-value line — every part earns its place. The 'Parameters:' header is slightly heavy for a single optional argument but costs little.

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 one-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free listing tool, this covers the essentials: what it lists, how filtering works, and what comes back. The remaining gap is what the returned font names can be used for elsewhere.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents the single parameter as an optional, case-insensitive substring match against font names, which the schema itself does not say. Only the exact string format expected by downstream text tools is left implicit.

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 ('List available fonts installed in GIMP'), which clearly distinguishes it from the layer, image, and GEGL listing siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. A useful hint would be that this is the way to discover valid font names before calling add_text or edit_text, but nothing like that is stated.

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