Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• test-animationC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Test animation functionality' suggests this might be a read-only or diagnostic operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether this modifies compositions/layers, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected output might be. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise at just 5 words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. While it may be too brief for adequate completeness, as a standalone statement it's efficiently structured with zero redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'testing' means operationally, what happens during the test, what results to expect, or how this differs from application tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool selection and invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description provides no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage where all parameters have clear descriptions and one has an enum with explicit values, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't add any semantic context about how parameters interact or typical usage patterns.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool's purpose as 'Test animation functionality in After Effects', which is clear but vague. It specifies the domain (After Effects) and general action (test animation), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like setLayerExpression or setLayerKeyframe that appear to perform similar animation-related operations. The description lacks specificity about what 'test' means versus 'apply' or 'set' operations.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that appear related to animation (setLayerExpression, setLayerKeyframe, apply-effect, etc.), there's no indication of when 'test' is appropriate versus 'set' or 'apply'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for testing versus applying animations.

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

• apply-effectC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'apply' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the effect already exists, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains zero wasted content.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, doesn't explain what happens after the effect is applied, doesn't mention error conditions, and doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools. The description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool selection and invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 7 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('apply an effect') and target ('to a layer in After Effects'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'apply-effect-template' or 'mcp_aftereffects_applyEffect', which appear to have similar functionality.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that appear related to applying effects (apply-effect-template, mcp_aftereffects_applyEffect, mcp_aftereffects_applyEffectTemplate), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.

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

• apply-effect-templateC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('apply') but fails to detail critical aspects like whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects project state, or has side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies content.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (applying effects in After Effects with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It misses behavioral details, usage context, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the tool uses 'predefined' templates, which aligns with the 'templateName' enum but doesn't enhance understanding of parameters like 'compIndex' or 'customSettings'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('apply') and target ('a predefined effect template to a layer in After Effects'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply-effect' or 'mcp_aftereffects_applyEffectTemplate', which appear to serve similar functions, preventing a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'apply-effect' or 'setLayerExpression', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an open After Effects project or specific layer types. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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

• create-compositionC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, whether the composition becomes active/selected after creation, what happens if a composition with the same name exists, or what the tool returns upon success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and is front-loaded with the essential information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, return values, or side effects. The agent lacks crucial context about what happens after composition creation and how to verify success.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description mentions 'specified parameters' but provides no additional semantic information about what those parameters mean or how they interact. Since schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add value beyond what's already documented in the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('create a new composition') and the target resource ('in After Effects'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools that might also create compositions with different parameters or contexts.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other composition-related tools, or any exclusions. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic action.

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

• mcp_aftereffects_applyEffectC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Apply an effect' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't address permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the effect already exists. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool that modifies After Effects compositions, more context about the operation's impact and results is needed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Apply an effect') and target ('to a layer in After Effects'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply-effect' or 'apply-effect-template', which appear to serve similar functions, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply-effect' or 'apply-effect-template'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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

• mcp_aftereffects_applyEffectTemplateC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool applies an effect template but doesn't explain what happens (e.g., whether it overwrites existing effects, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like modifying layer properties). This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of applying effects in After Effects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on behavioral outcomes (e.g., success/failure states, error handling) and doesn't address how this tool differs from siblings, leaving gaps for effective agent use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify how 'customSettings' interact with templates or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('apply') and target ('predefined effect template to a layer in After Effects'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'mcp_aftereffects_applyEffect' or 'apply-effect-template', which appear to have similar functionality, missing explicit differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mcp_aftereffects_applyEffect' or 'apply-effect-template'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an open project or specific layer types, leaving usage context unclear.

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

• run-scriptC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'read-only,' indicating non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'run' entails (e.g., execution context, output format). This is insufficient for a tool with potential side effects.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning full marks for conciseness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of running scripts in After Effects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on script behavior, return values, error cases, or how it differs from siblings like 'run-bridge-test,' leaving significant gaps for the agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('script' and 'parameters'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'predefined scripts' from the schema's 'Name of the predefined script,' resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Run') and resource ('a read-only script in After Effects'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'run-bridge-test' or other script-related tools that might exist, missing explicit differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides minimal guidance by specifying 'read-only,' which implies safe usage, but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'run-bridge-test'), or prerequisites. Without annotations, this leaves the agent with little context for selection.

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

• setLayerExpressionC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions setting or removing expressions but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, error handling, or the effect on existing keyframes. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, and integration with sibling tools. The high schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't compensate for the missing contextual information.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain expression syntax or property constraints further). This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Set or remove') and target ('expression for a specific layer property'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'setLayerKeyframe' by focusing on expressions rather than keyframes. However, it doesn't specify the context (e.g., After Effects project) beyond what the schema implies.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'setLayerKeyframe' or 'apply-effect' is provided. The description implies usage for expression management but lacks context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or scenarios where this is preferred over other tools.

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

• setLayerKeyframeC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Set a keyframe,' implying a write operation that modifies the project, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as permission requirements, whether the operation is reversible, or potential side effects like overwriting existing keyframes. This gap is significant for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Set a keyframe') and specifies the target without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about behavioral traits, usage context, and return values, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall, the description does not provide enough contextual information for safe and effective use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. However, since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate for any gaps but also does not detract from the existing documentation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Set a keyframe') and specifies the target ('for a specific layer property at a given time'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'setLayerExpression' or 'test-animation', which might involve similar layer operations, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing composition or layer, and does not mention sibling tools like 'setLayerExpression' for expression-based animations or 'test-animation' for broader animation tasks. This omission leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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

• mcp_aftereffects_get_effects_helpB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get help' but doesn't specify what kind of help is provided (e.g., documentation, examples, troubleshooting), how it's delivered (e.g., text, links), or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get help on using After Effects effects.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. Every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the help output looks like (e.g., text, structured data), potential errors, or usage context. For a tool that might return complex help information, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters. Baseline 4 is assigned as it meets expectations for a tool with no parameters.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get help on using After Effects effects.' It specifies the verb ('Get help') and resource ('After Effects effects'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get-help', which could cause confusion about scope or specificity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'get-help' or clarify if this is for effects-specific help versus general help. There's no context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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

• get-resultsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether it returns structured data or raw output, if it's idempotent, what happens if no script was executed, or any error conditions. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context about what 'results' means (structured data? error messages? execution logs?) and how this interacts with sibling tools like 'run-script'. For a tool that presumably retrieves output from script execution, more detail about the nature of the results would be helpful.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose rather than unnecessary parameter explanations.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Get results') and the resource ('from the last script executed in After Effects'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run-script' or 'test-animation' which might also relate to script execution.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides minimal guidance by implying this tool should be used after a script execution, but it doesn't specify when to use it versus alternatives like checking script status or retrieving intermediate results. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative tool references are included.

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

• run-bridge-testB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'verifies communication and apply test effects,' which suggests it performs both read-like verification and write-like application. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, permissions needed, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform an agent about its behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Run the bridge test effects script to verify communication and apply test effects.' It is front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with no redundant or verbose elements. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects or output, which are important for an agent to use it correctly. The description is minimally viable but leaves gaps in context, especially for a tool that involves 'apply test effects'—a potential mutation without safety annotations.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate given the tool likely requires none. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description adequately aligns with the schema's lack of parameters without adding unnecessary detail.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run the bridge test effects script to verify communication and apply test effects.' It specifies the action ('run') and the target ('bridge test effects script'), and mentions the dual objectives of verification and application. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'run-script' or 'test-animation', which keeps it from a score of 5.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It implies usage for verifying communication and applying test effects, but offers no explicit context on when to choose this over alternatives like 'run-script' or 'test-animation', nor any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of comparative guidance limits its helpfulness for an AI agent.

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

• get-helpB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets help,' which implies a read-only, informational operation, but doesn't specify what form the help takes (e.g., documentation, examples, troubleshooting), whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear sentence: 'Get help on using the After Effects MCP integration.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on what the help output includes, how it's formatted, or any behavioral traits. For a help tool, more context on the type of help provided would enhance completeness, but the absence of complex schema elements keeps it from being severely incomplete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate given the schema. Since there are no parameters, the baseline score is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get help on using the After Effects MCP integration.' It specifies the verb ('Get help') and the resource/topic ('After Effects MCP integration'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'mcp_aftereffects_get_effects_help', which might cause confusion about scope differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context by mentioning 'help on using the After Effects MCP integration,' suggesting it should be used when assistance is needed with the integration. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mcp_aftereffects_get_effects_help' or other sibling tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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