ae_open_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that the tool opens a file; it does not disclose what happens to the currently open project, whether unsaved changes are affected, or what the tool returns after opening.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and supported file types.

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 one-parameter open operation, the description is mostly sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out what an agent should expect after invocation, such as whether the current project is replaced or what return value is provided.

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 schema already documents file_path as an absolute path to the .aep file. The description adds value by specifying that both .aep and .aepx formats are supported, which is not stated in the schema, and by implying that the file must already exist.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Open an existing After Effects project file (.aep or .aepx)'. It clearly identifies the action and the file types, and the word 'existing' distinguishes this from creation-oriented siblings like ae_new_project.

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 implies the appropriate scenario: use it when an existing After Effects project should be opened. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as noting that ae_new_project should be used for creating a project or ae_import_file for importing assets.

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