Inspect item

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the error behavior ('Fails with NOT_FOUND once the item is deleted'), which tells an agent the id can go stale and that failure is expected rather than exceptional. It does not mention anything about cost, caching, or id lifetimes beyond deletion, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the field list. The failure note is appended last where it belongs, and nothing duplicates the schema or annotations verbatim.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not document return values, and it still advertises the headline fields. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the remaining gap is only the absence of explicit routing against the sibling inspect tools. That is a small but real omission rather than a structural hole.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries the id format example 'item:5@a1b2c3d4'. The description restates 'by id' and enumerates the kinds an id may refer to, which adds modest meaning about valid inputs but no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Describe one item by id', followed by an enumeration of what is returned (kind, owning image, parent and position, layer properties). The kind list (layer, group, text, mask, channel, path) tells an agent which object types are in scope, which helps separate it from gimp_inspect_image and gimp_inspect_text. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call this when you have an item id and want its details. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer it over gimp_inspect_image or gimp_inspect_text, nor any prerequisite or workflow context. The NOT_FOUND note is a failure mode, not guidance about when to use the tool.

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