ahk-mcp

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent operations, which the description aligns with by describing a listing/search function. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the return format ('library names with descriptions') and search scope ('searches name, description, category'), enhancing the agent's understanding of behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specifics on search/filtering and return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), annotations cover safety (read-only, idempotent), and the description explains the purpose, usage, and return format. It is mostly complete, but could slightly improve by clarifying the catalog scope or differentiating more from siblings like AHK_Library_Search to fully guide the agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the 'query' and 'category' parameters. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'Search by query string or filter by category', which slightly elaborates on usage but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List and search') and resource ('AutoHotkey libraries in the catalog'), specifying the scope of the operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like AHK_Library_Info (likely for detailed info) and AHK_Library_Search (possibly more focused search) by emphasizing catalog-wide listing with filtering options.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('List and search AutoHotkey libraries in the catalog') and implies usage through search or filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as AHK_Library_Search, which might offer different search capabilities.

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