Import Shadertoy

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It discloses that the first fetch on macOS may trigger a permission prompt, that setting TDMCP_SHADERTOY_KEY improves fetch reliability, and that pasting into raw_source keeps operations offline. These details align with the openWorldHint and give the agent actionable expectations about network behavior and side effects.

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 compact, three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: main function, feature details, and important network/offline caveats. No unnecessary words or filler.

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 12 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what gets built, how inputs are provided, and critical operational notes. It does not describe return values or all parameter options, but it gives enough context for an agent to invoke the tool successfully for the primary use case.

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 at only 25%, the description compensates for some key parameters (url, shader_id, raw_source, channels, expose_speed_control, expose_mouse_control, capture_preview) but leaves many others undocumented, such as resolution, pixel_format, parent_path, and provenance_override. It adds meaning to the main inputs but does not fully cover the parameter space.

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 function: 'Build a GLSL TOP from a Shadertoy URL, ID, or pasted source.' It identifies the resource (GLSL TOP) and the specific input formats, distinguishing it from sibling import tools like import_isf_shader. The mention of wiring iChannels, exposing Speed/Mouse controls, and capturing previews further clarifies the tool's scope.

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: it explains the three input modes (URL, ID, pasted source) and gives guidance on offline usage via raw_source and reliability via TDMCP_SHADERTOY_KEY. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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