gimp_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains several important behaviors: alpha selects opaque pixels, bounds 'just report', and op defines how modes combine. However, it does not disclose that the tool mutates the current selection state, explain sample_merged, or mention prerequisites like an open image.

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 extremely compact and information-dense. It front-loads the purpose and then packs mode-to-parameter mappings and operation semantics into one efficient sentence with no filler.

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 13-parameter tool, the description covers the main modes, operations, parameter mappings, and return value. An output schema exists for return details, reducing the need to describe them. Missing pieces are sample_merged semantics and usage guidance versus sibling tools, but the essential calling context is well covered.

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, and it largely does. It maps x, y, width, height to rect/ellipse; color, threshold, layer_id to color; item_id to item; amount to grow/shrink/feather/border; and lists op values. It omits sample_merged and does not explain every parameter, but the coverage is strong.

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 identifies the tool as a unified selection operation ('Selection in one tool') and enumerates the specific modes and operations it supports. It is distinct from sibling tools because it centers on selection, though it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like gimp_layer_mask or gimp_remove_background. The description implies usage through its mode list, but there is no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or mention of related tools.

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