After Effects skills

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description states that the tool reads bundled local workflows and does not open After Effects or use the network. This gives the agent useful expectations about side effects and runtime behavior. It does not cover error cases, but for a simple local read operation that is a minor gap.

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 compact and front-loaded: first the operation, then the parameter modes, then the practical recommendation. Every sentence adds information without repeating the schema or title.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with no required parameters, the description covers core behavior, parameter combinations, and recommended starting point. There is no output schema, so a slightly more explicit statement about what the index/entry contains would be nice, but the description is already sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful higher-level semantics: omitting name returns the index, supplying name returns an entry, and supplying reference targets a specific listed module. This is exactly the kind of usage nuance the schema alone does not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Read bundled local AE workflows.' This clearly identifies a read-only retrieval tool, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ae_save_project or ae_do that perform actions. It also explains the index-versus-entry behavior, making the purpose fully unambiguous.

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 explains when to call the tool ('Start with ae-clean-rig before building or editing projects') and how to select retrieval scope by omitting or supplying parameters. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools or contrasting when another tool would be better, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent.

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