Find Effects & Shaders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions that results are 'sourced live' from various websites, which conveys the web-search behavior. However, it does not disclose details like API key usage, rate limits, or potential failure modes, which would improve transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and includes a compact list of examples and sources. Every word earns its place.

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 search/find tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and sources but does not mention what the results look like or that the 'effect' parameter is required. The API key fallback is only in the schema, not the description. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly calling out category and framework as biasing parameters and providing concrete effect examples, which helps users formulate the required 'effect' parameter. This goes slightly beyond what the schema alone provides.

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: discovering modern web micro-effects and motion techniques. It lists specific examples (GLSL/canvas shaders, Framer Motion variants, etc.) and sources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like kroma_find_ui_inspiration or kroma_find_component_code.

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 context (finding effects) and suggests using category/framework to bias results, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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