gimp_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently indicates that this is a non-destructive status check ('Check whether ... reachable') and states what it returns. It does not explicitly cover error behavior or confirm no side effects beyond the verb 'Check', but the main behavioral boundary is clear.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded ('Check whether ... reachable') followed by the return data. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter status tool with an output schema. The description states the purpose and the key returned information. Nothing necessary for an agent to call it confidently 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description not only does not need to explain parameters, it also adds meaningful context about what the tool reports, which is more than sufficient.

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 ('Check') and resource ('GIMP and the agent bridge'), and lists concrete outputs (version, mode, open images). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like gimp_launch and gimp_list_images by focusing on status and reachability.

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 clearly establishes this as a health-check tool to determine whether GIMP and the bridge are reachable, which implies use before other operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as distinguishing from gimp_list_images for only listing images.

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