get-help

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.