More tools

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it can discover unloaded tools, lists them one line per tool by category, and can describe up to 10 chosen tools with full parameters. It does not describe the exact response shape or pagination, but for a discovery tool with strong annotations this is a minor gap.

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 usage model, then lists categories that matter because the schema does not provide a formal enum. Every sentence supports discovery, lookup filtering, or execution handoff, with no filler.

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?

Given a two-parameter read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to use correctly. It explains both output modes, the category filter, the describe limit, the relationship to ae_call, and the fact that already-loaded tools do not need lookup.

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 schema already documents both optional parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics by enumerating the category values and clarifying that describe returns full parameter details for up to 10 chosen tools, which goes beyond the raw schema text.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: discover/list/describe After Effects tools, including ones not loaded in this chat. It clearly distinguishes discovery from execution by naming ae_call as the way to run a discovered tool, and it distinguishes lookup from direct invocation for already-loaded tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when a tool is not loaded or when you need its full parameter details. It also states when not to use it: tools already loaded need no lookup and can be called directly, and running a discovered tool should go through ae_call.

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