ahk-mcp

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent operations, which the description aligns with by describing a search function. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the library paths scanned (ScriptDir\Lib, Documents\AutoHotkey\Lib, Program Files\AutoHotkey\v2\Lib), mentions fuzzy matching, and provides examples of usage. This enhances understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, lists library paths, and provides practical examples in a bulleted format. Every sentence and bullet point adds value, with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage with examples, and annotations provide safety hints. However, it lacks details on output format or pagination behavior, which could be helpful since there's no output schema. Overall, it's sufficient but has minor gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing full details for all parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only briefly mentioning 'query' and 'types' in examples. Since the schema already covers everything adequately, the description meets the baseline of 3 without significantly enhancing parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Search for symbols (classes, methods, functions, properties) across all AutoHotkey libraries. Uses fuzzy matching to find symbols by partial name.' It specifies the exact resource (symbols), verb (search), and method (fuzzy matching), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like AHK_Doc_Search or AHK_Tools_Search by focusing on library symbols rather than documentation or tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for searching symbols in AutoHotkey libraries with fuzzy matching. It includes examples that illustrate use cases (e.g., finding clipboard utilities, classes, methods). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as AHK_Doc_Search for documentation searches.

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