Create halftone

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing what the tool creates (baseCOMP, GLSL TOP, Select TOP, Null), how it handles source vs. noise, and the exposed knobs. It also discloses that no device permissions are needed when no source is provided. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are consistent and the description adds valuable behavioral 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?

The description is a single paragraph that is relatively long but each sentence adds unique information. It is front-loaded with the core effect description. While not overly concise, it avoids redundancy and is well-structured.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains what is created, the return value (summary with JSON block containing paths and preview), and the exposed controls. It covers key aspects but could be slightly more structured about the output format.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter well. The description adds overall architectural context (e.g., 'inline shader', 'Select TOP') but does not add significant per-parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: to build a print/comic print-look effect with styles like halftone dots, CMYK separation, dithering, or posterization. It specifies the verb 'build' and the resource (a baseCOMP with GLSL TOP), distinguishing it from sibling create_* 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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: for retro aesthetics and classic print looks. It explains the difference when a source is provided versus omitted, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list is extensive.

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