Evaluate arbitrary ExtendScript (JSX) in a live Adobe After Effects session, returning results or errors.
Evaluates arbitrary ExtendScript (JSX) in Adobe After Effects and returns result or errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| script | Yes | The ExtendScript (JSX) code string to evaluate. | |
| timeout | No | Evaluation timeout in seconds (default 10.0). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side-effect risks; it only says 'Evaluates... and returns result or errors.' It does not warn that arbitrary JSX can modify the After Effects project, invoke destructive operations, or otherwise change state. It also doesn't mention timeout behavior. The core eval behavior is named, but safety-relevant traits are absent.
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?
A single sentence with no filler; the key idea (evaluates arbitrary JSX, returns result/errors) is front-loaded. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool executes arbitrary code and has no annotations or output schema, so the description should address side effects, execution environment, and error/return format to be safe to invoke. It only covers the basic purpose, leaving important operational context missing.
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 covers both parameters (script and timeout) at 100%, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for fully documented schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('Evaluates'), a specific resource ('arbitrary ExtendScript (JSX) in Adobe After Effects'), and the outcome ('returns result or errors'). This clearly differentiates from sibling getter tools by focusing on arbitrary code execution rather than predefined queries.
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 general-purpose use ('arbitrary') and the sibling names suggest it complements the specific getters, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over ae_get_active_comp or the others. No when/when-not or alternative guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer from the word 'arbitrary'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.