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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: only "done" means verified readback, snapshot.fresh waits a few seconds for composition propagation, snapshot.message carries guidance, and running or finished renders expose frame counts or result.assetId. These details help an agent interpret the result correctly without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds dense but relevant operational details. It is information-rich rather than padded, though the semicolon-heavy, parenthetical structure makes it slightly harder to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description does much of the work by explaining done/readback semantics, snapshot.fresh and snapshot.message, and render status return fields such as frame count and result.assetId. It does not enumerate every possible non-done status such as failure or cancellation, but it provides enough context for an agent to call and interpret the tool.

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?

There are 2 parameters with 50% schema description coverage. The description explains where to get deviceId via aftereffects_list_connections, but it does not explicitly define requestId beyond implying it identifies the edit outcome. The schema pattern documents requestId format, but semantic meaning is only inferred.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Read an edit outcome." It also distinguishes the tool from related After Effects tools by focusing on status/readback semantics rather than requesting, cancelling, or rendering an edit.

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?

It clearly establishes the call context: use aftereffects_list_connections first to obtain the deviceId, then read the edit outcome. It also gives follow-up guidance when snapshot.fresh is false and warns never to reuse pre-edit layer keys. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over sibling status/read tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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