pdb_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers substantial behavioral detail on how argument types are interpreted (GimpImage binds to session, Drawable/Layer/Item accept layer_id, GFile accepts a path, RunMode accepts specific values). It omits potential error handling or side-effect disclosure, but the core argument-mapping behavior is well covered.

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 front-loaded and dense with information, moving from core purpose to prerequisite to argument-type mappings in a minimal number of words. Every sentence adds distinct value, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (generic PDB bridge, nested arguments object, output schema present), the description provides the essential context an agent needs to invoke it correctly, especially the argument-type mapping. It could mention error conditions or that arguments must match the procedure's signature, but the output schema covers return values and the core invocation details are present.

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 does so effectively by explaining the special handling for GimpImage, Drawable/Layer/Item, GFile, and RunMode arguments. It does not explicitly define the session_id or name parameters, but their meaning is strongly implied by the tool's overall purpose.

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 states a specific verb (calls) and resource (a discovered official PDB procedure against a session), making the tool's purpose clear. It differentiates from pdb_describe by instructing 'Use pdb_describe first', but does not explicitly contrast with pdb_search or the layer_* siblings, leaving some sibling differentiation implicit.

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?

It provides a prerequisite ('Use pdb_describe first'), which implies this tool is for executing previously discovered procedures. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this generic bridge versus the many specific operation tools (e.g., layer_duplicate, document_resize), leaving usage context to inference.

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