After Effects status

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

The description discloses an optional launch side effect ('Start After Effects if it isn't running'), which contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=true because launching a process is not read-only. Even though the description is transparent about the behavior, it directly conflicts with the declared read-only annotation.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core check/report action, lists the key outputs, explains relevance to other tools, and gives a clear starting-point instruction.

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 a good job summarizing the reported values and the launch side effect. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return shape, but for a status/diagnostic tool the essentials are present.

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 is only one optional parameter, launch, and the schema already describes it fully, including the ~30s responsiveness caveat. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check whether After Effects is running and report') and names concrete outputs: version, open project, and script file-write permission. It clearly identifies the tool's scope and why it matters for ae_save_frame and rendering, so an agent can distinguish it from project-specific siblings.

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 gives explicit context: use it to verify prerequisites for saving frames/rendering, and 'Start here if anything else fails.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the diagnostic-first guidance is clear enough.

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