list_open_images

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.