glitch_digital_feedback

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Explains the iterative feedback algorithm, parameter defaults, and return value. Mentions required dependencies (Node.js + GPU). Does not discuss error handling or file overwrite behavior, but covers essential behaviors.

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?

Front-loaded with one-sentence summary, followed by a concise explanation of the effect, then a well-structured Args list. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Covers purpose, algorithm, parameters, return value, and dependencies. With 6 parameters and complex behavior, this is sufficient. Could include example usage or limitations, but remains comprehensive for the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Provides clear descriptions for all 6 parameters including types, purposes, and default values. Adds meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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?

Clearly states the tool applies a digital feedback glitch effect, explaining the iterative frame feedback process with scale/rotation transform. Distinguishes from sibling glitch tools like glitch_rgb_shift by describing the specific ghostly trails and recursive visual patterns.

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?

States prerequisites (Node.js + GPU) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No comparison to sibling glitch tools or exclusions for certain use cases.

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