AHK_File_Active

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about enabling other editing tools and being a prerequisite step, which is useful behavioral information not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't detail what 'detect' or 'clear' actions do, or explain the state management of the active file, 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 appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded with key information. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines, and the third gives status context. There's minimal waste, though the inclusion of '📎 Active File: Not set...' could be seen as slightly redundant with the tool's function.

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) and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's role in the workflow and when to use it. However, it lacks details on return values or error handling, which would be helpful since there's no output schema, but the annotations provide some safety context.

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 already documents all parameters (action, path, text). The description implies the tool handles file paths but doesn't add specific details about parameter usage beyond what the schema provides, such as how 'detect' works with the 'text' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verbs ('detect and set active file for editing') and identifies the resource ('.ahk file path'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating it's an 'essential first step before any file modifications' and enables other editing tools to work, unlike tools like AHK_File_Edit or AHK_File_Create.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Use this immediately when user mentions any .ahk file path' and 'Essential first step before any file modifications.' It clearly indicates when to use this tool (as a prerequisite for editing) versus alternatives, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools, the context is unambiguous.

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