Import Shadertoy

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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits not captured by annotations: it requires specific TDMCP environment variables, may trigger a macOS network permission prompt, benefits from a Shadertoy API key, and offers an offline mode. It also describes default wiring (iChannels noise) and that it captures a preview.

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?

Four sentences, each adding essential information. The main action is front-loaded, followed by requirements, behavior details, and troubleshooting tips. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers network behavior, prerequisites, defaults, platform-specific quirks, and offline workflow. The agent gets enough context to use the tool correctly without needing extra documentation.

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 schema description coverage only at 25%, the description compensates by explaining key parameters: 'channels' (iChannels with noise defaults), 'expose_speed_control', 'expose_mouse_control', 'capture_preview', and 'raw_source' (offline safe). It does not cover every parameter, but the most important ones are addressed.

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 starts with 'Build a GLSL TOP from a Shadertoy URL, ID, or pasted source', which identifies the specific verb (build), the resource (GLSL TOP), and the input source (Shadertoy). This clearly differentiates it from generic shader creation tools like create_glsl_shader.

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 usage context: when the user has a Shadertoy URL/ID/source and wants a GLSL TOP. It also includes prerequisites (env vars) and an offline alternative (paste into raw_source). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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