get-results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and clearly signals a read-only retrieval ('Get results'), but it does not disclose what the result payload looks like, whether it can fail, or whether it has side effects. The behavioral description is minimal but not misleading.

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 that front-loads the action and resource with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters and low complexity, the description is mostly adequate, but the absence of an output schema leaves 'results' undefined. The agent must guess whether it returns a string, object, or status, which is a notable gap for a tool with no other documentation.

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 and the schema is 100% covered (empty properties), so the baseline for no parameters applies. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get results') and scopes it to the last script executed in After Effects, clearly distinguishing it from sibling execution tools like run-script and execute-script. The subject and scope are immediately understandable.

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 phrase 'last script executed' implies the tool should be used after running a script, providing clear context, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or what happens if no script has been executed. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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