Version info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. Beyond that, the description discloses what the response reports (capability availability), which is decision-relevant for an agent choosing which APIs to attempt. It does not cover instance-resolution failure behavior, but the annotation carries the safety burden.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first declares exactly what comes back, the second declares when to call it. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the highest-value information leads.

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 the work of sketching the return payload (version, build, capability list), which is sufficient for a trivially simple zero-required-param info tool. Only minor detail, such as the shape of the capability list, is missing.

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 a single optional 'instance' parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents instance resolution thoroughly. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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 names the exact resource contents (AE version, build, capability flags like saveFrameToPng, app.effects, Socket), which is far more specific than a tautology on 'Version info'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from info siblings such as ae_project_info or ae_comp_info by scoping to the host application itself rather than a document, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Call at session start to know what APIs are available' gives an explicit trigger condition, which is exactly the kind of when-to-call guidance most descriptions lack. There is no when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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