Open After Effects project

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the default behavior for unsaved changes, even though annotations already mark the tool as destructive. It does not contradict annotations and expands on safety precautions, warranting a score above baseline.

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 exceptionally concise at two sentences, with the critical action and file types front-loaded. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, earning a top score.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and key behavioral constraint. It lacks details on return values or error cases, but for an open operation this is sufficient; a perfect score would require those details.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by elaborating on the `on_unsaved_changes` parameter's effect ('choose save or discard explicitly'), which aligns with the parameter's enum choices and default, making it more actionable.

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 clearly states the action ('Open') and the specific file types ('.aep, .aepx, or template project'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'new_project' and 'save_project' by focusing on opening existing files.

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 provides guidance on handling unsaved changes ('Unsaved changes are protected by default; choose save or discard explicitly when needed'), which is helpful. However, it does not contrast with alternatives such as 'new_project' or 'import_file', nor does it specify prerequisites or when not to use this tool.

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