Load Tools

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

Annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world) match a discovery operation, and the description adds genuine behavior beyond them: the batch-step implicit-reveal behavior, and the fact that scripting/run_jsx requires AE_MCP_ALLOW_JSX=1. It does not state the return shape explicitly, but annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the routing rule, then a dense but purposeful catalog where every group clause earns its place by documenting parameter values. It is long, but the length is functional rather than padding; a small deduction for density over scannability.

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 read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what is needed: what it returns (a group's tools and their arguments), when to call it, and the scripting caveat. Nothing critical to correct invocation is 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does, enumerating every one of the 11 enum group values with the concrete capabilities each contains (e.g. timeline: split, shift, trim, markers; motion: animate with springs, text_reveal, transition, review_motion). This is far richer than the bare enum in the 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+resource: it shows a not-yet-listed tool group so the agent can read that group's tool arguments. This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling (which act on AE content rather than on tool discovery), though the name 'load_tools' could superficially be mistaken for invoking tools — the description corrects that. No sibling tool is directly comparable, so there is no explicit contrast to make.

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?

Gives clear context: use it when a group 'is not listed yet' and you need its tools' arguments. It also discloses an alternative mechanism — 'a batch step naming one of their tools shows its group by itself' — so the agent knows when this call is unnecessary. No explicit when-not beyond that, hence not a 5.

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