glitch_rgb_shift

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the effect (channel shift, noise) and return type, but does not mention side effects, destructive nature, file format limitations, or required permissions. Adequate but missing some safety/cost 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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose, followed by a structured args list and return info. No unnecessary filler. The args section could be more integrated but is clear and efficient.

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 output schema mentioned and parameters well-described, the description covers core functionality. However, it lacks details on error handling, supported formats, or performance implications. Adequate for a tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 0%, so description adds meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose and units (e.g., amount in pixels, angle in degrees, noise amplitude 0-1). Provides defaults. Could be more precise about edge cases but adds significant value.

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 an RGB channel shift glitch effect, specifying it shifts red and blue channels in opposite directions and optionally adds per-frame noise. This distinguishes it from sibling glitch tools like glitch_cmyk_split 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?

The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like other glitch effects. It implies usage for chromatic aberration effects but lacks guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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