Qt Documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read the full content' but does not disclose output format, error behavior (e.g., file not found), pagination, or any limitations. It is a basic read operation with no destructive behavior, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'read full content', making it minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 two short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. It contains no fluff and every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second gives critical usage instruction. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, one sibling), the description is mostly complete: it tells what it does and how to use it. However, it omits any mention of return value format or error handling, which would be expected in a more complete description. Still, for agent selection and invocation, it covers the essential 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 coverage is 100% and the description reinforces parameter semantics by explicitly instructing to use ONLY the filename from search results and not full paths. This caution goes beyond the schema's description by preventing common mistakes, adding genuine value over schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource 'full content of a specific Qt documentation page' and instructs to use the filename from search results, which distinguishes it from the sibling 'qt_documentation_search' (search vs read). It is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use the filename shown in search results, providing clear context that this tool is for reading pages after searching. It implies the workflow of search-then-read, though it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. This is sufficient guidance for the simple sibling context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only explains when to use the tool, not what the tool actually does (e.g., returns a list of documentation pages, performs exact or fuzzy matching, network access). It does not mention the return format, pagination, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for an AI agent needing to know what to expect.

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 structured sentence with clear (a), (b), (c) conditions and a skip clause. It is efficient and front-loaded with the action trigger. It loses a point for being a bit dense with multiple conditions, but overall it is concise and well-organized.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needs to explain what the tool returns and how the results should be interpreted. It does not. The usage triggers are useful but incomplete for a search tool—there is no mention of return values, result ordering, or how to use the output for verification. This is a clear gap.

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%, and the parameter descriptions are detailed (e.g., 'filter' enum explains that 'function' returns the class reference page containing the function). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 tool name 'qt_documentation_search' clearly implies the action of searching Qt documentation, and the description provides specific triggers (e.g., 'when you're about to claim a signal/slot/property/default exists'). However, the description never explicitly states 'Searches Qt documentation' as a function, relying on the name and schema. The conditions help differentiate from the sibling qt_documentation_read, but not explicitly.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions (a, b, c) and a skip condition ('Skip when: the question is about basic QString/QObject/signal-slot syntax'). This is strong usage guidance. However, it does not name the sibling tool qt_documentation_read as an alternative for reading full documentation pages, so it lacks the direct alternative recommendation that would merit a 5.

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