get-help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read-only help operation, but does not describe what the response looks like (e.g., text, list) or if there are any limitations. For a simple help tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the purpose. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it could be more complete by indicating what the help output contains, such as 'returns a list of available commands and usage tips.' Without this, the agent may not know what to expect.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% coverage (no params). Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 'Get help on using the After Effects MCP integration', which specifies the verb 'get help' and the resource being the integration. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'apply-effect' and 'run-script'. However, it lacks specificity about the type of help provided, e.g., listing available tools or detailed documentation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context or explicitly rule out other tools like 'get-results' or 'test-animation'. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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