Verify After Effects Connection

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

The description says 'Read-only check,' but readOnlyHint is false, which directly contradicts the annotation and leaves the mutation safety profile unresolved. It adds the project-names/media/paths guarantee, but the contradiction prevents the agent from trusting the behavioral disclosure. Annotation Contradiction.

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?

Two crisp sentences; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the scoping guarantee is a single additional clause. No filler or repetition.

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 no-argument connectivity check, the description covers what the tool verifies and what it deliberately doesn't read, and an output schema exists. However, the conflict between 'Read-only' and readOnlyHint=false leaves the core behavioral contract ambiguous, and there is no guidance on prerequisite conditions or failure behavior.

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?

Tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the no-param baseline applies. The description doesn't need to add parameter detail and correctly avoids inventing any.

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 the exact purpose: verify that the dedicated After Effects CEP connector is running, and explicitly scopes it as read-only and as not touching project names, media, or paths. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like verify_premiere_connection and After Effects render/template tools.

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 makes the use case clear: call this when the agent needs to confirm the After Effects CEP connector is available. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but the 'After Effects' specificity and connector-check wording implicitly distinguish it from verify_premiere_connection and other verify tools.

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