run_ahk

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context about termination requirements and timeout behavior. It explains how to get output and that scripts can perform system actions, complementing the 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 a single paragraph that covers purpose, usage, and return value without fluff. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the essential action.

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, the description covers input, behavior, output, and prerequisites. The output schema is described in the return section, and the schema documents parameters adequately.

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 briefly mentions parameters (script source, args, timeout, exe path) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, which already has detailed descriptions for each parameter. Schema coverage is considered high.

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 states 'Run an inline AutoHotkey script and capture its output', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ahk_control_send by focusing on running arbitrary scripts.

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 explains that scripts must terminate or timeout, how to emit output (FileAppend to '*'), and suggests use cases (background input, real hotkeys). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but provides good guidance.

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