glitch_turbulent_displacement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the algorithm (layered sin/cos for fBm) and parameter effects, but omits details like whether the operation is destructive to the input (it writes to output_path) or computational cost.

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 well-structured with a summary, technical explanation, argument list, and return type. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose.

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 6 parameters and an output schema (implied by return description), the description covers the effect, parameters, and return value. Lacks error conditions and usage context, but is sufficient for basic selection.

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%, but the description provides a complete Args block detailing each parameter with defaults and descriptions, significantly adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Apply turbulent displacement glitch effect,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It further explains the use of fractal Brownian motion noise for organic-looking displacement, distinguishing it from other glitch effects like cmyk_split or 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies the effect is for organic displacement but does not compare to other glitch tools or state prerequisites.

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