getHelp

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get help' without disclosing what the help output looks like, whether it returns a list of commands, static text, or has any side effects. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the obvious purpose.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Get help on using the After Effects MCP integration'. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It doesn't mention what kind of help is provided (e.g., a list of tools, usage examples, or error explanations). Since there is no output schema, the description is the sole source of behavioral context, and it lacks sufficient detail to fully understand the tool's 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly adds no parameter-specific information because none exist. It doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'help on using the After Effects MCP integration', which is distinct from all sibling tools that perform specific actions like creating compositions or setting keyframes. It is specific and not a tautology.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only implies that it's for getting help, but does not say 'use this when you need instructions' or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools are all concrete operations, but no comparison or context is provided.

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