gimp_filter_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches filters and gives examples; it does not disclose matching semantics, empty-query behavior, whether results are names only, or the effect of the limit parameter. This is a minimal behavioral account.

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 contains the core action, the target resource, and practical examples. There is no filler or repetition, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 is simple, has optional parameters with defaults, and has an output schema, which lessens the need to document return values. Still, the missing behavior around query matching and the unmentioned limit parameter leave an agent with some ambiguity when calling the tool correctly.

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 compensate. It clarifies 'query' indirectly through examples like 'blur' and 'noise', but it never explains the 'limit' parameter or its default behavior. With two parameters and only partial query guidance, this is insufficient compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies a clear resource ('GEGL operations available as filters'), with helpful examples like 'blur' and 'shadow'. It distinguishes itself from generic GEGL/PDB search directions, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools such as gimp_filter_describe or gimp_apply_filter.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to find GEGL filter names by keyword. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it or which alternative sibling tool to prefer, such as gimp_filter_describe for inspecting a filter or gimp_apply_filter for applying one.

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