ahk_status

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

Annotations already convey that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds the JSON return structure (installed, path, version), which is useful context, but it does not describe edge cases or behaviors beyond what the annotations imply.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Returns:' block provides a quick reference to the output shape, though it might be redundant given the output schema. Still, every line earns its place.

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?

For a simple status-check tool with no inputs, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what the response looks like, leaving no critical 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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so the description correctly adds no parameter details. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and nothing here reduces that.

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 'Report whether AutoHotkey is installed and where' – a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling status tools by explicitly naming AutoHotkey, so the agent knows this is not a general system status check.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wsl_status or linux_status. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases beyond the implicit 'check AHK status'.

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