describe_pdb_procedure

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.