ae_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool is a read-only status check with no script execution side effect, which is important context. However, it does not state what the actual status output looks like (e.g., connected/disconnected status shape), so a small behavioral gap remains.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The most important information ('Check... status only') is front-loaded, followed by a clear exclusion and a practical fallback instruction.

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 zero-parameter health-check tool, the description is nearly complete: it defines the action, the safety boundary, and the next step if disconnected. The only missing piece is a description of the return value/status format, and no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description appropriately adds no irrelevant parameter detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check After Effects bridge status only.' It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly saying it never runs scripts, which is essential given siblings like ae_run_jsx. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core purpose.

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 explicitly states what the tool is for ('Check... status only') and what it is not for ('Never runs scripts in AE'). It also provides actionable guidance for the disconnected case: 'restart AE once or call ae_reconnect once.' This is explicit when/when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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