Apply a chromatic aberration filter to offset RGB channels, creating color fringing and glitch effects for generative art.
Add a chromatic aberration (RGB split) filter layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offsetX | No | Horizontal pixel offset (default: 3). | |
| offsetY | No | Vertical pixel offset (default: 0). | |
| intensity | No | Effect intensity 0–1 (default: 1.0). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says it 'adds a layer', which hints at an additive/non-destructive model, but it does not say whether the effect targets the active layer or the whole document, whether it is reversible, or how it stacks with existing effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Appropriate size for a simple one-effect tool.
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 three optional parameters are fully documented and no output schema is needed, but with no annotations the description should at least say what the effect attaches to and whether it stacks. Minimum viable rather than 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 100%, so offsetX, offsetY, and intensity are fully documented with defaults in the schema. The description adds nothing about them, which is acceptable at full coverage but leaves no added meaning.
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?
States a specific action (add) and a specific effect (chromatic aberration / RGB split filter layer). The parenthetical gloss disambiguates the effect name for an agent. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the ~10 design_apply_* filter siblings, though the effect name alone carries that work.
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 statement of when to use this versus design_apply_blur, design_apply_grain, or the other filter tools, and no note on prerequisites (e.g., must a layer be selected?). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.