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 the full burden. The non-destructive, read-only nature of a help tool is apparent from the name and description, but the description does not disclose return format, prerequisites, or any potential side effects. It adds only the purpose, not deeper behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no redundancy or filler. It is perfectly front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (zero parameters, no output schema), so the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not specify the scope of help (e.g., which effects, level of detail) or how it relates to the other sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between alternatives.

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 defines zero parameters, and the description does not need to elaborate. Since there are no parameters, the schema is completely self-explanatory, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('get help') and resource ('After Effects effects'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It is somewhat distinct from the sibling 'get-help' by being effects-specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the generic 'get-help' sibling or other tools. The description lacks any mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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