gimp-local-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a unique operation or resource: image lifecycle, layer properties, selections, adjustments, and PDB introspection are clearly separated. Even similar-sounding tools like resize_image vs resize_canvas or select_rectangle vs select_ellipse have distinct descriptions that prevent misselection.
Naming Consistency4/5The vast majority follow a clear verb_noun pattern (create_image, list_layers, set_layer_opacity). Minor exceptions like gimp_status, gimp_capabilities, brightness_contrast, and hue_saturation are acceptable but deviate slightly from the dominant convention.
Tool Count2/5With 40 tools, the server exceeds the 25+ threshold considered too many. While GIMP is complex and many operations are genuinely distinct, the count feels heavy for an MCP surface and could be streamlined without sacrificing core functionality.
Completeness4/5The tool set covers image creation/opening/saving/export, layer CRUD and properties, transformations, selections, basic color adjustments, and undo/redo. Missing advanced features like filters and text tools are mitigated by the PDB access tools, allowing agents to invoke arbitrary GIMP procedures. Minor gaps remain, but the core workflow is complete.
Average 3.3/5 across 40 of 40 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 10 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under GPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without explaining any side effects, such as replacing the existing selection, applying to the specified image_id, or whether it is reversible. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. While it is efficient, it does not mention parameters or behavior, making it too terse to be fully useful. It earns its place as a basic purpose statement but lacks needed elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite being a simple tool, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify how the selection is applied, any requirements (e.g., image must be open), or the impact on existing selection. An output schema exists but return values are not the issue; the missing operational context makes it inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the image_id parameter at all. The schema only provides the title 'Image Id' with no explanation of what it refers to or how it is used. The description fails to compensate for this lack of parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Select the entire image' clearly states the tool's action (select) and target (the entire image). It distinguishes this from sibling selection tools like select_rectangle, select_ellipse, and select_layer_alpha by specifying 'entire image'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention that this is the tool to use when the full image selection is needed, nor does it reference any sibling tools or exclude cases where other selection methods are more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read operation, but it does not mention side-effect-free behavior, error conditions, required permissions, or what 'stable properties' encompasses.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It loses a point because it is so brief that it omits context that could be useful, but it is still concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema visible, the description alone is insufficient. It lacks behavioral context, relationship to sibling tools, and parameter clarity, making it barely adequate for a tool with only two parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention 'image_id' or 'layer_id' at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's integer types and required flags, failing to compensate for the missing parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation: 'Return stable properties for a layer/drawable.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it's distinct from sibling tools like 'list_layers' or 'get_image_info'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_layers' or 'get_image_info'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues beyond the plain description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'merge type' but does not explain consequences like layer destruction, changes to layer stack, or required permissions. The agent is left guessing about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary fluff. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a merge operation and absence of annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not cover merge behavior, return values, or edge cases, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond restating 'merge type'. The semantics of merge_type values, image_id, and layer_id are not explained, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Merge') and the resource ('a layer down'), using a known GIMP operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like duplicate_layer or delete_layer, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potentially similar merge operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without revealing whether the adjustment modifies the drawable in place, is destructive, or has any side effects. There is no mention of reversibility or selection handling, which is expected for a filter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core action. There is no redundancy or filler, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool, the description is still incomplete. It omits essential parameter details and behavioral context, and the presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of explanation about how the adjustment behaves or what the output represents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters brightness, contrast, or layer_id. It does not mention units, ranges, or the meaning of these values, leaving the agent to guess the semantics solely from the schema's bare names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Apply' and the resource 'basic brightness/contrast adjustment to a drawable'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like hue_saturation and desaturate, though it relies on the name for that differentiation rather than explicit wording.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hue_saturation or desaturate. It neither states usage context, prerequisites, nor exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the operation modifies the layer in place, whether it is reversible, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently states the core action. While it lacks detail, it does not waste words and is front-loaded with the key verb and object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description is too thin to be complete. It provides no context about return values (output schema exists but is not described in prose), no mention of undo behavior, and no hint about the mode parameter options. The level of completeness is minimal for a tool with this schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'mode' indirectly but does not enumerate possible values or explain the layer_id parameter. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the function: to desaturate a drawable using a GIMP desaturation mode. The verb 'desaturate' and resource 'drawable' are specific, and mentioning 'GIMP desaturation mode' ties it to GIMP's method, distinguishing it from sibling tools like brightness_contrast or hue_saturation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or cases where another tool (e.g., hue_saturation) would be more appropriate. The usage context is not clarified beyond the basic operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely names the action without explaining effects like whether it modifies selection state, requires an existing selection, or returns a value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, non-redundant sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is concise, though it could be expanded with useful context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not connect the operation to image_id, mention preconditions, or indicate what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer critical details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage for parameters is 0%, and the description does not mention image_id at all. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify how it relates to the 'current selection' or how to use it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific operation ('invert') applied to a resource ('the current selection'). It stands apart from sibling tools like select_all, select_none, and select_rectangle by using a unique verb, though it stops short of defining what 'invert' entails in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other selection tools, nor are prerequisites such as an active selection or the relationship to the image_id parameter mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'apply', implying a mutation, but gives no details about reversibility, parameter ranges, or impact on the target layer. This is minimal and largely non-transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary content, so it is not optimally concise—it is simply short.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 required parameters, no annotations, and a minimal description, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the role of layer_id, value ranges, or what the adjustment does to the image or layer. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of behavioral and parameter context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only mentions the names of the parameters (hue, saturation, lightness) without explaining their meaning, ranges, or units. It adds no practical value beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies a hue, saturation, and lightness adjustment, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like brightness_contrast and desaturate, though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the description: it is for applying basic hue/saturation/lightness adjustments. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over similar adjustment tools, nor any prerequisites or layer targeting advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. It only states the action without revealing side effects, such as whether the layer's old position is vacated, whether parent_id must exist, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and well-structured, though it sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no schema documentation. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and parameter explanations beyond a vague hint. The agent would need to guess at required inputs and constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameter meanings. 'Top-level or group position' hints at parent_id and position, but it does not clarify the semantics of the position integer (e.g., zero-based index) or the role of each parameter. The four parameters remain largely undocumented for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('move') and resource ('layer'), and the phrase 'top-level or group position' conveys the movement scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rename_layer or delete_layer by indicating a repositioning action, though the notion of 'position' is somewhat ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description does not mention typical use cases like reordering layers or moving between groups, so the agent has to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 only states the high-level action, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the selection is cleared from all images or just the one specified), whether the operation is undoable, or why an image_id parameter is required. This lack of detail is a notable gap for a mutation-like operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a seemingly simple operation, though the extreme brevity contributes to the lack of parameter semantics. It earns full credit for conciseness but loses one point for being too sparse to be fully self-sufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a required parameter and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the role of 'image_id', the return value (even though an output schema exists, the description doesn't hint at what it contains), or how the tool behaves in edge cases. The sibling tools provide selection context, but the description itself leaves key aspects unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0%—the description does not mention the 'image_id' parameter at all. Since the schema only provides the type and requirement, the description should clarify why the image_id is needed and what it identifies (e.g., the image whose selection should be cleared). It provides zero added meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clear the image selection' uses a specific verb ('clear') and a clear resource ('image selection'), making its purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling selection tools like select_all, invert_selection, and the various selection primitives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like select_all or invert_selection. It does not state any context, prerequisites, or mention that it deselects the current selection, leaving the user to infer the appropriate usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Replace' indicates a destructive mutation of the current selection, but it does not explain coordinate origin, bounds checking, or whether the operation applies to the active image or layer. Minimal context is provided beyond the schema's parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, lacking important explanatory content, though this is not a structural issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a five-parameter tool. It fails to specify coordinate system, units, whether the rectangle is anti-aliased, or how selection replacement interacts with existing selections. Sibling tools like select_ellipse likely share the need for such context, but this description does not provide it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the five parameters. It does not explain that x/y are top-left coordinates, width/height are in pixels, or how image_id identifies the target image. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which are vague.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb, 'Replace', and identifies the resource as 'the selection', making the action clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling selection tools (e.g., select_ellipse, select_layer_alpha) by specifying 'rectangle'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely functional and does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema and sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'transparent RGBA' and 'top of an image', hinting at color mode and position, but does not disclose side effects such as whether the new layer becomes active, how dimensions default, or any image mode prerequisites. This is minimal and incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence and starts with the action, making it concise. However, it is under-specified, repeating the basic idea conveyed by the tool name without adding sufficient detail. It is efficient but lacks depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With five parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description needs to provide significant context. It only covers the basic action, omitting parameter semantics, behavioral effects, and usage scenarios. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the five parameters (name, width, height, opacity, image_id), leaving their meaning and behavior entirely unexplained. The agent cannot infer the role of each parameter from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create), the resource (a layer), and the specifics (transparent RGBA, at the top of an image). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like duplicate_layer or rename_layer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need a new transparent layer on top. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like duplicate_layer or move_layer. The context is clear but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the crop modifies the image in place, creates a new image, or how offsets affect the result. This leaves the operation's safety and side effects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately short, though under-specified in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters and no annotations or schema descriptions, the description is inadequate for correct usage. It does not explain how the rectangle is defined or whether the operation targets the image identified by image_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only vaguely refers to a 'supplied rectangle' without explaining the roles of width, height, offset_x, and offset_y. The agent must infer the parameter semantics from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'crop' and resource 'image', and the phrase 'supplied rectangle' indicates the operation scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like resize_image or rotate_image.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use crop_image versus alternatives like resize_image or select_rectangle. The description does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete' without mentioning whether the deletion is permanent, if it can be undone, or any side effects on the image or other layers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and clearly states the core action, making it efficient and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple destructive tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage context, side effects, and any indication of what the tool returns, making it minimally adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (image_id and layer_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not add any meaning to these parameters, such as how to obtain valid IDs or any constraints beyond the types already specified in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a layer from an image' clearly specifies the verb (delete), the resource (layer), and the context (from an image), distinguishing it from sibling tools like duplicate_layer or rename_layer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the layer must exist), nor does it advise caution about the destructive nature of the operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and scope, but does not reveal whether the operation is destructive, whether it modifies the image in place, whether aspect ratio is preserved, or what the return value is. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for such a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the action. There is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral traits like destructiveness or in-place modification, and parameter clarity. Since there are no annotations, the agent is given too little context to confidently select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds only a general notion of 'dimensions' for width and height, but does not explain the image_id parameter or specify units. The schema itself provides only basic titles, so the match is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Scale the image and its layers to exact dimensions' clearly identifies the verb (scale), the resource (image and its layers), and the specific scope (exact dimensions). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool resize_canvas, which only resizes the canvas, and from other image transforms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention resize_canvas or other sibling tools, and lacks any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is purely declarative with no mention of side effects, reversibility, error conditions, or parameter constraints beyond the range. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, which it fails to meet.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the main action and subject.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutating tool with no annotations, the description is too sparse. While the output schema exists, the description does not provide context about when to use the tool, how to interpret the opacity range (e.g., 0 meaning fully transparent), or any potential side effects. The tool's simplicity does not excuse the lack of usage and parameter guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'opacity' ranges from 0 to 100, but it gives no meaning to 'layer_id' other than what is visible in the schema (an integer). This is only partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Set), the target (layer opacity), and the valid range (0 to 100). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like set_layer_visibility or set_layer_mode, which target different properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the name, not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation affects only the specified layer. It is a minimal statement with no additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence, concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary, though it is under-specified in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks context about required preconditions, relationship to sibling tools, or error handling. The existence of an output schema is not referenced, and the description alone is insufficient for an agent to know how to obtain a valid layer_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters. While the names (layer_id, visible) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('layer visibility'), differentiating it from sibling tools like set_layer_opacity or set_layer_mode. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no information about when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention that layer_id should come from list_layers or that it operates on the active image.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a basic fact. It does not mention side effects, whether the undo is reversible via redo, what happens if no actions exist, or any destructive implications. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and resource with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even though there is an output schema present (so return values need not be explained), the description lacks important context such as whether undo history is supported, how many levels can be undone, or what happens when no prior action exists. For a single-parameter tool, it is minimal but still leaves notable gaps in understanding the tool's operational boundaries.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema shows a single required parameter 'image_id' with no description (coverage 0%). The description's phrase 'in an image' vaguely relates to this parameter but does not clarify its meaning or format beyond what the parameter name/title already implies. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Undo the latest action in an image.' It uses a specific verb ('undo') and resource ('image'), and the scope ('latest action') distinguishes it from broader operations. The sibling 'redo' makes the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'redo' or other image-editing actions. The description does not mention conditions (e.g., whether an undoable action exists) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists return fields and does not disclose side effects, error behavior, permissions, or whether the image must be open.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and provides a clear list of return fields. There is no redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description needn't explain return structure. However, the lack of usage guidance and parameter semantics leaves some context gaps for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'for an image' without explaining the meaning, source, or valid values of image_id. The agent is left to infer that image_id is an identifier, but no practical guidance is given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns specific image attributes (dimensions, name, file, base type, dirty state) for a given image. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_layer_info or get_active_image by focusing on image-level metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_open_images or get_active_image. No context is provided about typical workflows or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only reveals that the search is 'live' and uses 'literal text', but does not disclose matching behavior (e.g., case-sensitivity, substring vs whole-word), result format, or behavior of the limit parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and key constraint with no wasted words. It is appropriately minimal and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple interface and an output schema, but the description omits usage context and behavioral details (e.g., how matching works, how limit affects results). It is minimally viable but leaves gaps that an agent would need to discover at runtime.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at query semantics via 'literal text'. The 'limit' parameter is not explained at all, and no additional meaning is added beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('live GIMP PDB procedure names'), and clarifies the method ('by literal text'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_pdb_procedure and invoke_pdb_procedure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over describe_pdb_procedure or invoke_pdb_procedure. The description implies its role as the search entry point but lacks any when-to-use or exclusion details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states that the existing selection is replaced, which is a key side effect, but it does not disclose other important behaviors such as requiring the image and layer to exist, potential error conditions, or whether the operation can be undone. This is minimal transparency for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple signature with two required parameters and an output schema, so the description partially suffices. However, it lacks context about how this selection operation relates to other selection methods and omits prerequisites for safe invocation, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It only implies that 'layer_id' refers to the layer whose alpha is used, but it does not explain 'image_id' or the relationship between the two parameters. The schema titles alone are insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Replace'), a clear resource ('the selection'), and a distinguishing source ('a layer's alpha'). This clearly differentiates it from shape-based selection tools like select_rectangle and select_ellipse, and from global selections like select_all and select_none.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention selection operation modes (e.g., add, subtract, intersect) or provide examples of when this should be chosen over other selection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, error behavior (e.g., what happens if there is no undone action), or whether it modifies the image in place. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the verb and clearly conveys the action. No wasted words or redundant details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and the simplicity of the tool, the description is too sparse. It omits important context such as what happens when no action is undone, whether the image is modified, and any return value expectations. The output schema exists but is not described, and the single parameter is never explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'image_id' parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's title and type, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Redo' and clearly states the resource 'the latest undone action in an image.' This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like 'undo' and identifies the exact operation performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (after an undo) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations. There is no explicit 'when/when-not' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It states the basic operation but does not disclose whether the image is modified in place, whether a new image is returned, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It contains only the essential information about what the tool does and the valid rotation values.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple operation, the description is minimally acceptable, but it lacks behavioral details (in-place vs. new image) and usage context. The presence of an output schema is not explained, and the overall guidance is thin.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds the allowed values for the rotation parameter, which is valuable since the schema lacks an enum. However, the image_id parameter is not explained beyond its name, and the schema description coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: rotating an image, listing the specific allowed rotation values (90, 180, 270 degrees). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like flip_image or crop_image.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or under what circumstances rotation is appropriate. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does mention the key behavior of format selection via extension, but it omits other important traits such as overwrite behavior, potential error conditions, or whether the image must be open. The description provides minimal transparency beyond the format mechanism.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and format-determining detail. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate for a simple export operation but lacks context on prerequisites, alternative tools, and behavior on overwrite. It provides the essential behavior but leaves gaps for the agent to infer from schema or siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention image_id, path, or overwrite directly, though the phrase 'explicit file extension' hints that the path should include the desired extension. This minimal hint adds little meaning beyond the schema's field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export an image using the format selected by the explicit file extension' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool exports an image. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like save_xcf by highlighting that the format is determined by the file extension, which is a key differentiating detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for exporting to a format chosen by the file extension, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like save_xcf or state when not to use this tool. There is no direct exclusion or mention of other save/export tools, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'List' and notes the order, but it doesn't clarify what 'root layers' means (e.g., whether nested/layer groups are excluded) or any other behavioral details. It's adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word is meaningful and the structure is clear, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, but it omits any connection between the action and the required 'image_id' parameter. Also, 'root layers' could benefit from a brief clarification. Overall, it's adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description makes no mention of the 'image_id' parameter. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to clarify what the parameter refers to. The agent must rely on the parameter name alone, which is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'root layers' and specifies 'top-to-bottom order', clearly differentiating this from other layer operations like get_layer_info or create_layer. It's unambiguous about what it returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description tells you what it does but doesn't explicitly say when to use it over alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions. The usage is implied but not directly guided, which is a minor gap given sibling tools like get_layer_info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action of opening a file, without disclosing side effects such as whether the image becomes active, what happens if the file is already open, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the core action without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only one parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it omits side-effect information (e.g., whether opening sets the image as active) that would help an agent reason about fallback behavior. It is adequate for a basic open operation but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'path' with only a title and no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description merely says 'existing local image file', which hints that path is a file path but does not explain required format, absolute vs relative, or supported file types. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('existing local image file') with a target ('in GIMP'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_image or list_open_images by specifying that it operates on existing files on disk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by 'existing local image file', suggesting this is for loading files rather than creating new ones. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_image, nor any exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds the critical detail that existing files require overwrite=true, implying the default behavior will not overwrite and may fail. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as whether saving marks the image as clean, or any details about return values or errors, which would be useful given the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function and the key overwrite guardrail. Every word contributes value, with no waste or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description is minimal. It covers the essential purpose and the overwrite caveat, but does not mention sibling tools for comparison, nor does it elaborate on parameter usage beyond overwrite. Given the absence of annotations, a more complete description would include guidance on alternatives or expected path format, making this adequate but not exceptional.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only clarifies the 'overwrite' parameter, leaving 'image_id' and 'path' unexplained. Though the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not specify the expected format for path (e.g., whether to include the .xcf extension) or how to obtain image_id. This is insufficient given zero schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Save an image as XCF'. This is a specific verb + resource combination, and the mention of XCF distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_image, which presumably handles other formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is the overwrite condition, which is parameter-specific, not a tool-selection guideline. Siblings like export_image and open_image are not mentioned, so the agent receives no explicit direction on choosing save_xcf.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool 'describes' a procedure, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention error handling for unknown procedures, dependence on a running GIMP instance, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, but the description does not specify prerequisites (e.g., GIMP must be running), how it relates to sibling tools like invoke_pdb_procedure, or what is returned. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description lacks broader context that would aid an agent in deciding to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single required parameter, procedure_name, with no description and 0% schema coverage. The tool description says it describes a GIMP PDB procedure, which clearly implies that procedure_name is the name of the procedure to describe. While the tool description adds some context, it does not specify format or naming conventions, relying on the parameter's obvious intent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Describe a live GIMP PDB procedure using runtime metadata.' It uses a specific verb ('Describe') and a clear resource ('live GIMP PDB procedure'), and the addition of 'runtime metadata' distinguishes it from other PDB-related tools like search_pdb or invoke_pdb_procedure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is used to obtain metadata about a PDB procedure, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search_pdb or invoke_pdb_procedure. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the usage context somewhat inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the flip modifies the image in-place, returns a new image, or affects the undo stack. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, as the agent cannot infer side effects or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action without excess words. Every part is meaningful, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for basic usage. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., in-place modification vs. new image) and any prerequisites (e.g., image must be open), which are important for an agent to use it correctly and safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'HORIZONTAL or VERTICAL', which suggests possible values for 'direction', but does not specify exact string formats, case sensitivity, or default behavior. The 'image_id' parameter is left entirely to the schema, so the description adds only partial value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Flip') and resource ('an image'), and clarifies the two possible axes (HORIZONTAL or VERTICAL). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'rotate_image' which performs rotation, not mirroring.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for flipping an image, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide any exclusions. No comparison to sibling tools like rotate_image is given, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description implies a non-mutating check/return operation by using 'check', but with no annotations it does not explicitly disclose side effects, error handling, or permissions. Acceptable for a status tool but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action, no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter status tool with output schema, the description captures the essential function, but lacks context on typical usage scenarios (e.g., pre-flight check before GIMP operations).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters, so schema provides complete coverage; description need not add parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'check' with resource 'configured GIMP connection' and specifies output as 'basic session status'. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling gimp_capabilities, though the function is evidently a status/health check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use vs alternatives or prerequisites. Only states what it does, not when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the key behavior that layer pixels are not scaled, but omits other important behaviors such as how offsets affect positioning, what happens to layers extending beyond new bounds, or any side effects. This is partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the core purpose and key behavior. It contains no filler and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, 3 required, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is insufficient for full understanding. It lacks information about offset handling, edge cases (e.g., negative values, smaller canvas clipping), and the effect on existing layers beyond the note on scaling. The presence of an output schema does not reduce the need for behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details. While names like width, height, and offset_x are somewhat self-explanatory, their exact semantics—especially offset behavior and units—are not clarified. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (resize the canvas) and the resource (canvas), while the phrase 'without scaling layer pixels' distinguishes it from similar tools like resize_image. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you want to change canvas dimensions while preserving layer pixel scale, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it. Sibling tools like resize_image and crop_image exist, but no direct comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explicitly states that the selection is 'replaced', disclosing the side effect that the previous selection is lost. However, it does not explain coordinate interpretation (e.g., whether x,y is the center or top-left), units, or any operational specifics. The negative side effect is clear, but behavioral details remain minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and is appropriately sized for a simple selection tool, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has five required parameters, zero percent schema description coverage, and no annotations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description is far too sparse to provide the necessary context for parameter handling, coordinate system, and expected behavior. It leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has five required parameters with zero textual description coverage. The tool description does not explain the roles of x, y, width, height, or image_id, and notably x and y are ambiguous (center vs top-left) without additional context. This is a critical omission for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Replace' and a specific resource 'the selection', clearly indicating that the tool replaces the current selection with an ellipse. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as select_rectangle, select_none, and invert_selection, so the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Replace the selection with an ellipse' provides clear context: it is used when you want to set the selection to an elliptical shape. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage is effectively self-evident, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. It states the image types but does not mention side effects such as creating a new active document, adding to the image stack, or any required conditions. This is a thin description for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and delivers the key variation (image types) efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (3 parameters), the description is almost sufficient. It defines the action, the target, and the value domain for the optional parameter. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it's still slightly sparse compared to the richness implied by the sibling operations, but adequate for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no per-parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It partially does by enumerating valid values for base_type ('RGB, GRAY, or INDEXED'), but width and height remain unstated. This adds some meaning over the schema but leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new RGB, GRAY, or INDEXED image' clearly states the action (create) and resource (image), and specifies the supported image types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_open_images, get_active_image, and open_image, which handle existing images rather than creating new ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when a new blank image is needed) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention that open_image or other creation-adjacent tools could be used for different purposes, so guidance is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It notes that the copy is inserted at the top but does not explicitly state that the original remains unchanged or describe other side effects like attribute copying or naming. Basic behavior is disclosed, but details are lacking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and result. It contains no redundant or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter operation with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and placement. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., layer must exist) and does not explicitly mention that it's a mutating operation, although 'duplicate' implies creating a new layer. It is adequate but minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain the roles of image_id and layer_id. It merely says 'a layer' without clarifying which image contains it or what the IDs refer to. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (duplicate), the resource (layer), and the outcome (insert copy at top). It distinguishes this tool from siblings such as create_layer and move_layer by specifying the duplication and placement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need a copy of an existing layer) but does not explicitly compare it with alternatives or state when not to use it. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully state that pixels are unaffected, but it omits other behavioral context such as whether the change is reversible via undo, whether the layer name is the only metadata altered, or any required permissions or prerequisites. A bare minimum is met, but more detail would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no irrelevant information. The clarifying phrase 'without changing its pixels' earns its place by distinguishing the tool from others.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, given no annotations, it could benefit from noting that the layer_id must reference an existing layer in the current image and that the rename is immediately applied. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with no structured safety metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no explanation of the 'name' and 'layer_id' parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and although the parameter names and types are self-explanatory, the description is expected to compensate for the low coverage. It adds no meaning beyond what the input schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (rename a layer) and the specific resource (layer), and differentiates from sibling tools by adding 'without changing its pixels.' This distinguishes it from pixel-modifying operations like rotate_image or brightness_contrast, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when a rename is needed without altering pixel data, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to similar layer operations like duplicate_layer or set_layer_visibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It discloses a key behavior (dirty images require discard=true), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, error behaviors (e.g., what happens if an image is dirty and discard is false), or whether the operation is destructive. The disclosure is partial but adds value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence. It immediately states the action, then adds the necessary condition. No wasted words; it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior (close and discard condition). However, it omits handling of non-dirty images, error cases, and does not explicitly reference the image_id parameter. The tool is low complexity, but the description could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain parameters. It explains 'discard' in the context of dirty images, adding meaningful semantics. 'image_id' is not mentioned but is self-explanatory from its name and context. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Close an image') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., list_open_images, get_active_image) by focusing solely on the close operation. The additional detail about discard makes the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a conditional usage hint: dirty images need discard=true. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It is implied that closing is for dismissing an image, but no direct comparison to other operations is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the action ('Set') without disclosing side effects, prerequisites (e.g., layer must exist), whether the operation is reversible, or how invalid mode strings are handled. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that states the action, target, and examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter with an output schema, the description is close to sufficient. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (no annotations, no side-effect disclosure) and the absence of a full list of valid modes leaves some gaps. It meets the minimum viable standard but is not richly comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by providing two concrete valid values for the 'mode' parameter, which helps the agent infer the expected string format. The 'layer_id' parameter is self-explanatory from its name. While it doesn't enumerate all possible modes, the examples provide a meaningful baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and identifies the exact resource ('GIMP layer mode'), with concrete examples (LAYER-MODE-NORMAL, LAYER-MODE-MULTIPLY). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling layer tools that set opacity, visibility, or position.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: use it when you want to change a layer's compositing mode. However, the description provides no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' or exclusionary guidance, such as noting that this is not for opacity or blending adjustments. This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the conditional nature ('if available'), which is useful, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or what happens when no image is available. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that clearly states the action and condition without any unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema is available, and the tool is a simple retrieval, the description is complete. It notes the conditional availability, which is the key behavioral detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. According to the baseline for 0 parameters, this is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('the image associated with GIMP's default display'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_open_images and get_image_info, which have different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_image_info or list_open_images. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses one useful trait: the returned IDs are stable, which is important for referencing images later. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does not mention other behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, potential errors, or ordering. It adds some value but lacks richer context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the core purpose without waste. It includes the key detail about stable IDs, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential information: it lists open images and notes stable IDs. It is reasonably complete, though it could explicitly say 'all' open images or hint at usage context, but the simplicity justifies a high score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It correctly omits any parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List open images' with a specific resource (open images) and a notable detail about stable GIMP image IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_active_image or get_image_info, which target a single image, whereas this tool lists all open images.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident from the name and verb. It implies usage for enumerating open images, but does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a higher score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool returns information, implying a non-mutating operation, and adds context by noting it reports known v0.1 limitations. This is transparent and honest, though it does not explicitly declare safety or side effects (which are unnecessary for a return-only tool).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and containing no unnecessary content. It is perfectly concise and well-structured for a simple query tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and an output schema that defines the return structure, the description is sufficiently complete. It communicates the tool's purpose without needing to elaborate on return values or additional context, matching the tool's low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The baseline score of 4 applies, and the description need not add parameter meaning because there are no parameters to describe.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: supported high-level operations and known v0.1 limitations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly action-oriented. The scope is concise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool, but the purpose is implicitly clear: to discover what operations are supported and what limitations exist. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but none are needed given the tool's unique role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals an important constraint—arbitrary Scheme source is intentionally rejected—and clarifies acceptable value formats (JSON scalars, arrays, scheme_symbol objects). It also notes the procedure is 'live', indicating direct execution. These details go beyond a simple invocation statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundant statements. The format restriction is presented clearly and compactly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a generic invocation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose, input format, and a critical restriction. An output schema exists to describe return values, so its absence in the description is acceptable. It could be more complete with a brief note about needing the procedure signature from describe_pdb_procedure, but overall it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the allowed value shapes ('JSON scalars, arrays, or {"scheme_symbol": "ENUM-VALUE"} objects') and the positional/keyword distinction, which maps to the args and keywords parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly name the parameters or provide examples of how to construct arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Invoke') and the target ('a live PDB procedure'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like search_pdb and describe_pdb_procedure, which are for discovery and inspection, while this tool is for execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Guidance on when to use this tool is implied rather than explicit. The description implies callers must know the procedure name and provide structured values, but it doesn't explicitly mention consulting describe_pdb_procedure first or warn against using it for arbitrary Scheme. No clear alternatives or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/epi13/gimp-local-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server