gimp_launch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that the tool starts GIMP with the bridge running and describes the difference between GUI and headless execution. However, it does not mention side effects, process lifecycle, what happens if GIMP is already running, or what 'wait_seconds' controls, leaving meaningful behavioral 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the mode-specific behavior is explained efficiently. Every sentence contributes useful information, making this an appropriately sized and well-structured description.

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 description covers the main purpose and mode selection but leaves 'wait_seconds' completely unexplained. Given that there are no annotations and the schema provides no parameter descriptions, this is a significant gap. An agent cannot fully understand the launch behavior or know how to adjust the wait time appropriately. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the missing parameter context makes the description incomplete.

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 explains the 'mode' parameter well by defining 'gui' and 'headless'. However, 'wait_seconds' is not mentioned anywhere in the description or schema, so a key parameter remains undocumented. The tool partially compensates for the low schema coverage but not completely.

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 clearly states that this tool starts GIMP 3 with the bridge running, which is a specific verb and resource. It also explains the two modes, giving a clear sense of what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like gimp_shutdown or gimp_status, though its role as a launcher is fairly obvious.

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 provides useful guidance on when to use 'gui' versus 'headless' mode, which helps the agent choose parameter values. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool relative to siblings or mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or sequencing guidance, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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