gimp_pdb_describe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Describe' semantically indicates a read-only introspection action and implies no execution or mutation, but the description does not explicitly state that the procedure is not invoked or how invalid names are handled. This is a partial but not complete disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds useful information about the procedure signature, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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 low-complexity introspection tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and result content. It would be more complete with an explicit example of a PDB procedure name, but the output schema likely supplies return-value structure, so nothing critical is missing.

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 explain the 'name' parameter, but it never says that 'name' is the exact PDB procedure identifier or provide any format/example. The tool title and description vaguely imply that 'name' refers to the procedure, but the parameter semantics are not meaningfully clarified beyond the bare schema property.

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 ('Describe') and a specific resource ('a PDB procedure'), then spells out what the description contains: arguments with types, defaults, enum choices, and return values. This distinguishes it from siblings like gimp_pdb_call or gimp_pdb_search, which clearly execute or search procedures.

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 use when you need to inspect a procedure's signature before calling it, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over siblings such as gimp_pdb_call or gimp_pdb_search. There is no exclusionary guidance like 'use this instead of calling the procedure directly.'

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