mcp_aftereffects_get_effects_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 disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation (getting help) but does not state whether it is safe, what the output format looks like, or whether it requires After Effects to be running. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotations.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word is necessary. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity of the tool (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable. It tells the agent what the tool does but does not clarify the nature of the returned help (e.g., text, JSON, command reference) or the scope of 'using After Effects effects'. For a help tool, some additional context about output would improve completeness.

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 the input schema provides no information. The description adds no parameter details, but the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and there is nothing to compensate for, as no arguments are needed.

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 with a specific verb ('Get help') and resource ('After Effects effects'). It distinguishes from the generic 'get-help' sibling by specifying the domain. However, it lacks detail on exactly what kind of help is provided (e.g., syntax, examples, troubleshooting), making it slightly less clear than a more descriptive 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-help' or other effect-related tools. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. For a tool with a generic sibling, this is a notable gap.

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