Etat du pont After Effects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'verifies' the connection and lists return values, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm it has no side effects or describe failure behavior (e.g., if After Effects is not running). It adds some value by listing returned data but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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, well-structured sentence (with a second short directive) that front-loads the core purpose and uses no filler. Every phrase contributes value: it identifies the action, the expected return data, and the recommended usage context. It is efficient and free of redundancy.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It specifies the returned data items (version, project, active composition, list of compositions) and gives usage guidance. It does not detail the exact output format (e.g., JSON structure), but since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties object). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because there is no parameter information to document. The description correctly focuses on behavior and return values rather than parameters, adding no unnecessary parameter semantics.

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 tool checks the connection to After Effects and returns specific data (version, open project, active composition, list of compositions). It uses a specific verb ('Verifie la connexion') and identifies the resource and exact outputs, making it distinct from sibling tools like ae_run or ae_help which perform actions or provide help.

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 explicitly says 'A appeler en premier en cas de doute sur la connexion' (call it first in case of doubt about the connection), providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or describe alternatives (like ae_help), so it falls short of the full 5 criterion that requires when-not and alternatives.

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