ahk-mcp

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining it 'detects and sets' files based on text, which implies it may change the active file state (contradicting read-only hint if 'set' means write). However, it clarifies this is conditional on autoSet parameter, adding useful context beyond annotations. No rate limits or auth needs are disclosed.

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 brief but could be more structured. The first line 'Ahk auto file' is unclear and adds little value. The core purpose is stated in the second sentence, but the note about AHK_File_Active is useful yet could be integrated more smoothly. It's somewhat front-loaded but includes redundant phrasing.

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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the tool's purpose and hints at an alternative, but for a tool that interacts with file states, more context on behavior (e.g., what 'active' means, error handling) would improve completeness, especially without output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it mentions 'text' generally but doesn't explain format or examples). With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 states the tool 'Automatically detect and set active AutoHotkey file from user text', which provides a clear verb ('detect and set') and resource ('AutoHotkey file'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like AHK_File_Active, AHK_File_List, or AHK_File_View, leaving ambiguity about when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

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 includes a note 'Use AHK_File_Active to select a target', which hints at an alternative but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus AHK_File_Active or other file-related tools. There's no explicit guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus when to use alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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