check-bridge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It communicates that the tool is a read-only verification and lists what it reports, implying non-destructive behavior. It also discloses the health-check nature and a possible remediation step. It could be stronger with an explicit non-mutating statement, but it is already clearly safe and informative.

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 three sentences long and front-loads the purpose with 'Health check'. Every sentence earns its place: purpose and output, usage timing, and troubleshooting tip. There is no filler or 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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), but the description compensates by listing the expected returned fields (version, AE version, bridge folder, project/active comp). It also tells the agent when to run it and what to do on mismatch, making the tool fully usable without additional documentation.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema has no properties. The description wisely avoids inventing parameter details and focuses on behavior and output, which aligns with the baseline for parameterless tools. Nothing more is needed.

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?

Description begins with 'Health check' and uses specific verb 'verify', clearly stating it checks that the After Effects MCP Bridge panel is open and responding. It enumerates the report contents (version, AE version, bridge folder, open project/active comp), which unambiguously identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like run-bridge-test.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Run this FIRST when anything times out or behaves oddly', giving a clear condition for use. It also provides an alternative action for a version mismatch: re-run `npm run install-bridge` and restart After Effects, which tells the agent what to do next rather than just describing the tool.

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