ahk-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies the external LSP server used (THQBY AutoHotkey v2 LSP), lists the types of symbols returned, and describes fallback behavior. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like error handling or server dependencies.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does and the LSP server, the second explains input options and fallback, with no wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, LSP context, symbol types, and input handling. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., structure of symbols) and potential errors, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. Annotations provide safety context, but more behavioral info could enhance completeness.

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 input schema fully documents the parameters (code, filePath, timeoutMs). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it implies that code or filePath can be used for analysis and mentions the fallback, but does not clarify parameter interactions or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 specific action ('returns classes, methods, functions, variables, hotkeys, and labels') and resource ('document symbols'), using the verb 'returns' to indicate retrieval. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying it uses the THQBY AutoHotkey v2 LSP server, unlike general analysis or file tools in the list.

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: to extract symbols from AutoHotkey v2 code via an external LSP server. It mentions fallback behavior ('falls back to active file'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as AHK_Analyze or AHK_Lint, which might overlap in analysis.

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