So. Why isn't it randomly forming a bicycle? Or a tail?
At this point you are arguing just to argue.
It is a reasonable conclusion that artistic license is used in the comic. Artistic license is defined as "deviation from fact or form for artistic purposes". It is reasonable to look at the depiction of the Snarl and conclude that it doesn't literally have eyes. And if you do that, you can look at the MitD, of which even less is shown than the Snarl--literally nothing at all is shown about it, except for eyes--and conclude that, if it doesn't have actual eyes, artistic license is a reasonable explanation for how it's depicted.
I don't find "the MitD is drawn with eyes so it must have eyes" to be a compelling argument, any more than I find "the Snarl is drawn with eyes so it must have eyes" to be a compelling argument.