ae_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: 'Changes nothing,' i.e., it is a read-only, side-effect-free probe. It also previews the returned information, which substitutes for the missing output schema. It stops short of describing failure behavior (e.g., what is reported when AE is not running), so it is not a full 5.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with purpose and appends the safety note at the end. Every clause earns its place by naming a distinct diagnostic facet, with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully compensates by enumerating the fields it reports (versions, running/dialog state, project, comp). For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool this is nearly complete; only the behavior on a failed/disconnected bridge is left unexplained.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Check') and resource (the After Effects bridge) and enumerates the concrete diagnostics it reports: server/runner versions, AE running state or dialog, AE version, open project, active composition. This clearly separates it from the mutation and inspection siblings, which do not report bridge health.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a diagnostic/troubleshooting probe, and 'Changes nothing' hints it is safe to call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer it over ae_inspect or ae_get_result, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the bridge must be connected for it to be useful).

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