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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the purpose without describing what happens when invoked (e.g., return format, side effects, required permissions). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool. However, it lacks any structural elements (e.g., headings, examples) that might aid readability. Still, it earns a high score for brevity.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what help is returned (e.g., text, links, tutorials). The current description is too brief to provide complete context for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and output.

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 input schema has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuous). According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 applies when coverage is high. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. The score reflects adequacy without additional value.

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 'Get help on using After Effects effects' clearly states the verb ('get help') and the resource ('After Effects effects'). It indicates that the tool provides assistance or documentation, though it lacks specificity about the type of help (e.g., parameter descriptions, tutorials). This is better than vague or tautological descriptions but does not fully distinguish from related tools.

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 its siblings, such as 'get-help', 'list-available-effects', or 'list-layer-effects'. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent to infer the context from the name alone.

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