ahk-mcp

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds context about reading from 'file or provided JSON' and summarizing diagnostics, which clarifies the tool's behavior beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail aspects like rate limits, error handling, or output format specifics, limiting additional value.

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, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. There's no unnecessary information or repetition. However, it could be slightly more structured, such as by explicitly separating input sources from the summarization action, but it remains efficient overall.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the core purpose but lacks details on output format, error cases, or how it integrates with sibling tools. Annotations provide safety context, but more behavioral guidance would enhance completeness for effective agent use.

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%, with all 8 parameters well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between 'path' and 'content' or the meaning of 'summary' vs 'raw' format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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: 'Reads a VS Code Problems list... and summarizes AutoHotkey LSP diagnostics.' It specifies the verb ('reads' and 'summarizes'), resource ('VS Code Problems list'), and scope ('AutoHotkey LSP diagnostics'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like AHK_Lint or AHK_LSP, which might also handle diagnostics, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like AHK_Lint or AHK_LSP, which could be related to diagnostics, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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