glitch_slit_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of transparency. It describes the temporal sampling mechanism and notes GPU dependency, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the input file is modified), performance implications, or error conditions. A richer disclosure would improve trustworthiness.

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 adequately sized with a clear first sentence for purpose, followed by an explanation and then structured args. The algorithm detail is concise, though the description could be slightly more streamlined by removing the illustrative sentence, which is helpful but not strictly necessary.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema), the description covers input paths, parameter ranges, and return value. It lacks edge-case handling (e.g., invalid depth) and does not explain the output schema beyond a dict, but for the parameter count it is reasonably complete.

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 the description must explain each parameter. It does so for all four: input_path (absolute path), output_path (optional), depth (range 1-120, default 30), direction (0-3 mapping). It adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying allowed values and defaults, though it could more explicitly connect depth to the effect's trade-offs.

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 slit-scan temporal displacement effect, explaining that each row/column is sampled from past frames. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling glitch effects like glitch_cmyk_split or glitch_datamoshing, which focus on color channel or data corruption rather than temporal smearing.

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 mentions that Node.js and GPU are required, setting a prerequisite but not explicitly guiding when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not advise against use in certain scenarios or compare to similar effects, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the effect description.

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