gimp_capabilities

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.