After Effects skills

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

ReadOnlyHint is already present, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: the tool is local only, makes no network calls, and never touches After Effects. It also explains how outputs vary by argument combination (index, entry, or reference). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence contributing either an access mode, an example, or a usage rule. There is no filler or repetition of schema metadata.

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?

For a read-only documentation reader with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers invocation modes, gives a starting example, clarifies reference loading, and states the tool's non-invasive behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Even though the schema already describes both parameters, the description adds substantial meaning by defining the three call modes (no args, { name }, { name, reference }) and providing a concrete example skill name. That is exactly the kind of contextual semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('bundled After Effects skills'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling AE-operation tools by noting it does not touch After Effects or the network. It also lays out the document access modes, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does.

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 provides an explicit workflow directive: 'Start every AE task with ae_get_skill({ name: 'ae-clean-rig' })' and advises loading references only when needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'without touching After Effects' phrasing clearly implies it is for reading skill docs, not performing AE actions.

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