ahk-mcp

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable operations. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining what each linting level does (syntax, structure, semantics) and how autoFix works with dryRun preview. This provides practical guidance that annotations alone don't cover.

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 perfectly concise at two sentences that are front-loaded with essential information. Every word earns its place: the first sentence covers purpose and levels, the second covers key features. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema), the description provides good context about linting behavior and features. With annotations covering safety aspects and schema covering parameters, the description focuses appropriately on operational context. It could slightly improve by mentioning typical output or error scenarios, but is largely complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'levels' and 'autoFix with dryRun preview' which map to the 'level' and 'autoFix/dryRun' parameters, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 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 verb ('Lint') and resource ('AHK v2 scripts'), specifying the exact programming language and version. It distinguishes from siblings like AHK_Analytics or AHK_Analyze by focusing specifically on linting with defined levels, rather than general analysis or other operations.

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 this tool by explaining the three linting levels (fast, standard, thorough) and the autoFix/dryRun features. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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