qt-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it scans visible widgets, reports specific issue types (e.g., zero_size, overlapping_siblings), and implies a read-only diagnostic operation without side effects. However, it does not mention performance considerations, error handling, or output format details, leaving some gaps.

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 a bulleted list of specific issues detected. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential details without redundancy, making it highly efficient 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 complexity (diagnostic scanning), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool detects but does not detail the output structure or behavioral nuances like scanning scope or limitations. The output schema likely covers return values, so this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, focusing instead on the tool's function. A baseline of 4 is applied since it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by explaining what the tool does.

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 a specific verb ('Detect layout issues') and resource ('visible widget tree'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on layout diagnostics rather than interaction, inspection, or rendering tasks. It provides concrete examples of what it detects, making the purpose 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 implies usage for debugging layout problems in Qt applications, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like qt_widget_details or qt_snapshot for inspection, or when not to use it (e.g., for non-layout issues). It lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or context, leaving usage inferred from the purpose.

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