qt-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what format the output returns (though output schema exists), or potential performance implications. It's minimal 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 a single, clear sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential 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 simplicity (one optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidance and behavioral context that would be helpful for an agent operating in a rich sibling tool environment.

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 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description doesn't mention the 'skip_hidden' parameter at all. However, since there's only one parameter and the tool's purpose is straightforward (listing windows), the description's omission is less critical. It adds no parameter semantics, but the simplicity keeps it from scoring lower.

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 resource ('all top-level windows and their types'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'qt_object_tree' or 'qt_widget_details' which might also provide window-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'qt_object_tree' and 'qt_widget_details' that might overlap in functionality, the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for listing windows versus getting detailed widget information.

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