gimp_list_images

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The 'List' verb unambiguously signals a read-only query, and the sentence discloses exactly what is returned. It does not cover edge cases such as an empty image list or unsaved file paths, but those are minor for such a simple query, and an output schema exists.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned data. There is no redundant phrasing, no repetition of schema information, and every phrase adds value.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema, and a simple read-only listing operation, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it and to understand what it returns. The only minor gap is explicit sibling differentiation, but the simple scope makes that unnecessary.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the parameter-semantics baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior and return contents rather than argument details, and no input guidance is needed.

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'), a clear resource ('open images'), and enumerates the returned fields ('ids, dimensions, file path, and layer count'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like gimp_image_info, which is implied to target a single image, and from gimp_list_fonts, which targets a different resource.

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 makes the use case self-evident: call this when you need an inventory of currently open images or need their ids for further operations. It does not state exclusions or explicitly compare to gimp_image_info, but the plural 'open images' provides clear context and there are no misleading alternatives.

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