ahk-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating this is a safe, repeatable operation. The description adds useful context about the 'falls back to active file' behavior and mentions 'auto-fixing' capabilities, but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like performance characteristics, error handling, or what 'LSP-like' specifically entails beyond what's in the schema.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and main input options. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first followed by implementation details.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, analysis/fixing operations) and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. While annotations cover safety aspects and the schema documents parameters well, the description could better explain what 'LSP-like analysis' entails, what types of fixes are available, or what the output format looks like for this non-trivial tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema thoroughly documents all 7 parameters including their purposes, defaults, and constraints. The description adds minimal parameter semantics by mentioning 'Accepts direct code or a file path', which corresponds to the 'code' and 'filePath' parameters, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already covers.

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 provides 'LSP-like analysis and auto-fixing for AutoHotkey v2 code', specifying both the action (analysis/fixing) and target resource (AutoHotkey v2 code). It distinguishes from siblings like AHK_Analyze and AHK_Lint by mentioning 'auto-fixing' capability, though the distinction could be more explicit.

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 provides some usage context by mentioning it 'Accepts direct code or a file path (falls back to active file)', which helps understand input options. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like AHK_Analyze, AHK_Lint, or AHK_Workflow_Analyze_Fix_Run, leaving the agent to infer based on the 'auto-fixing' capability.

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