ahk-mcp

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds value by specifying the tool analyzes 'AutoHotkey v2 scripts' (version constraint) and mentions fallback behavior to active file, which aren't covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, performance implications, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second covers input methods. It's front-loaded with the main function and avoids unnecessary details. However, the first line 'Ahk analyze' is redundant with the tool name, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and input options but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with siblings. With no output schema, more information on return values would be beneficial for 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 schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying the code/filePath duality and fallback. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'analyzes AutoHotkey v2 scripts and provides contextual information about functions, variables, classes, and other elements used in the code.' This specifies the verb (analyzes), resource (AutoHotkey v2 scripts), and output (contextual information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like AHK_Lint or AHK_Workflow_Analyze_Fix_Run, which may have overlapping analysis functions.

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 some usage context by mentioning it 'accepts direct code or a file path (falls back to active file),' which implies when to use code vs. filePath parameters. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like AHK_Lint for error checking or AHK_Doc_Search for documentation, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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