ahk-mcp

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

The annotations include destructiveHint: true, indicating potential destructive operations. The description adds context by specifying 'smart caching' and the chaining workflow, which helps clarify behavior beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't detail what exactly is destructive (e.g., file modifications) or other traits like rate limits, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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 and front-loaded with key concepts (orchestration, caching, chaining), but the sentence 'Operations: view, edit, analyze.' is redundant given the schema and could be omitted. Overall, it's efficient but has minor waste.

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, destructive hint, no output schema), the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the orchestration aspect but lacks details on output format, error handling, or how the chaining works in practice. With no output schema, more context on results would be helpful, making it adequate but with 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing operations (view, edit, analyze) which are already in the schema's enum, but it doesn't provide additional meaning or usage examples beyond what the schema offers, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 'orchestrates AHK file operations with smart caching' and 'chains detect→analyze→view/edit', which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about what resources it acts on or how it differs from siblings like AHK_File_View or AHK_File_Edit. It lists operations but doesn't clearly define the verb+resource combination, making it somewhat vague.

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 mentions chaining detect→analyze→view/edit, which implies a workflow context, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., AHK_File_View, AHK_File_Edit, AHK_Analyze). There are no alternatives named or exclusions stated, leaving usage unclear.

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