run_ahk

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

Discloses that scripts must terminate or run until timeout, and explains how to emit output via FileAppend to stdout. Also documents the return JSON structure. These add value beyond the annotations' destructiveHint and openWorldHint.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses a compact, structured format. Every sentence adds relevant context, including termination behavior, output method, and use cases, without redundancy.

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 an arbitrary-code execution tool, the description covers key operational details: termination requirement, timeout handling, output capture, return format, and ideal use cases. Combined with the schema and annotations, it is fully specified.

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 description lists the parameters ('script source, optional args, timeout, optional exe path') but does not add details beyond the schema, which already provides descriptions for all properties with defaults and constraints. The description adds no new meaning to the parameters.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool runs an inline AutoHotkey script and captures output. The use-case note ('reliable background input (ControlSend/ControlClick) and real hotkeys') distinguishes it from siblings like run_command and ahk_status.

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?

Mentions AHK is ideal for background input and real hotkeys, giving clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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