glitch_scanline_jitter

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

The description explains the effect and all parameters, but lacks details on side effects, performance, or that it creates a new file without modifying the input. Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden.

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 two sentences plus a structured args list. It front-loads purpose and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

The description sufficiently covers parameters and return value for a moderate complexity tool, but could include typical use cases or edge cases for additional completeness.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides explanations for all 6 parameters, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, could include constraints like frequency range 0-1.

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 scanline jitter glitch effect, displacing random horizontal rows for a CRT look. It uses a specific verb 'apply' and distinguishes from sibling glitch and effect tools.

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 implies the tool is for a CRT malfunction look but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like other glitch effects or when not to use it.

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