qt-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action ('wait for a UI state change') and lists parameters, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as what happens on timeout (e.g., returns error or null), whether it blocks execution, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a structured list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (6 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., timeout handling, return values). The output schema likely details return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it should address other behavioral aspects for better completeness.

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 adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'Widget objectName (for widget_visible)'), clarifies dependencies between parameters and conditions, and provides a default value for timeout_ms. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions, making the parameters well-understood.

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 as 'Wait for a UI state change,' which is a specific verb (wait) and resource (UI state). It distinguishes itself from siblings like qt_click or qt_set_property by focusing on waiting rather than direct interaction. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as qt_layout_check, which might involve similar monitoring.

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 through the parameter explanations (e.g., 'for widget_visible'), suggesting when to use certain parameters, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like qt_layout_check or qt_messages. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or specific scenarios for tool selection.

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