gimp_layer_effects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of indicating safety and behavior. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and 'non-destructive filters' reinforces this. However, it does not disclose what is returned or any error conditions, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and clearly names the target resource, making it easy to scan.

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 listing tool, the description is minimally adequate, and the presence of an output schema covers return-value details. Yet it lacks any guidance on how to obtain layer_id and does not position the tool against the singular gimp_layer_effect sibling, leaving some context 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?

The schema has one parameter, layer_id, but 0% schema description coverage. The description does not compensate by explaining what the layer_id should reference or how to obtain it. It merely parrots the object of the operation, adding no new semantic value.

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 ('List') and identifies a clear resource: the non-destructive filters attached to a layer. This makes the tool's function immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling gimp_layer_effect, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like gimp_layer_effect or gimp_apply_filter. It also does not mention prerequisites such as needing a valid layer_id obtained from another tool.

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