glitch_screen_tearing

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it creates horizontal tear bands with configurable parameters affecting count, offset, and speed. It also states the return format (dict with success status and output_path). This is adequate for a non-destructive effect 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 concise with a clear Docstring-style format (Args, Returns). It front-loads the purpose and then details parameters. However, the Returns section is minimal (just 'Dict with success status and output_path') which could be more explicit.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers all inputs and the return. However, it does not differentiate from the large set of sibling glitch tools, leaving the agent unsure which glitch effect to choose for a given task.

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 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains each parameter's purpose, default values, and type. This compensates well for the missing schema documentation, though the descriptions are terse.

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 applies a screen tearing glitch effect and describes the visual outcome (horizontal tear bands shifting left/right). It is distinct from sibling glitch tools like glitch_rgb_shift or glitch_datamoshing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like glitch_cmyk_split or glitch_vhs_tracking. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context-aware usage advice.

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