gimp_shutdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that unsaved work is not prompted for in the GUI, which is a critical side effect. It also reveals session-dependent default behavior. It does not mention every possible side effect, but the most important destructive behavior is disclosed.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence. Every clause earns its place: the action, the conditional default, and the warning about unsaved work. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It covers the primary action, the parameter's default resolution, and the key risk. The only minor gap is that 'the bridge' is not explicitly defined, though the tool name and sibling context make it reasonably clear.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone parameter quit_gimp. It does so by explaining the default behavior in headless versus GUI sessions and tying it to the lack of an unsaved-work prompt. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the raw boolean/null schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Stop the bridge.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like gimp_launch, gimp_close_image, and gimp_export, which operate on other parts of the GIMP workflow. Even without naming a sibling explicitly, the action is unambiguous.

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 gives parameter-level context by explaining how quit_gimp defaults differ between headless and GUI sessions, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage is implied by the tool name and 'Stop the bridge,' but there are no exclusions or alternative routing.

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