pdb_describe

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most important behavioral trait, that the procedure is not executed (a safe read-only introspection), but it says nothing about the shape of the result (structured schema dump vs. formatted text), failure behavior for unknown procedure names, or whether it has any side effects.

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 differentiator ('without running it') comes at the end where it belongs and every word earns its place.

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 introspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose but leaves the return shape and the accepted name format unstated. An agent knows broadly why to call it but not exactly what it will get back.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. Saying it inspects 'a GIMP PDB procedure's' schemas does imply that 'name' is the procedure identifier, but it gives no hint about the expected naming format (e.g., hyphenated PDB names such as gimp-image-new) or whether a display name works.

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 GIMP PDB procedure's argument and return schemas), and 'without running it' implicitly separates it from the sibling pdb_run. It stops short of naming pdb_search as the way to find procedure names, so the distinction from that sibling is left to inference.

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 phrase 'without running it' implies the use case: look up a procedure's signature before invoking it via pdb_run. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of pdb_search for locating the procedure name, and no stated prerequisites or error conditions.

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