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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get actions' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about key behavioral traits.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by a brief parameter explanation. It avoids unnecessary details, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter info more seamlessly.

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 moderate complexity (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context would enhance 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 minimal semantics by explaining that 'ref' is a 'Ref to a QMenu widget', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic but not comprehensive context, meeting the baseline for low coverage.

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 'Get' and the resource 'actions from a QMenu widget', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'qt_trigger_action' or 'qt_invoke_slot' that might also interact with menu items, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid QMenu widget reference, or compare it to siblings like 'qt_trigger_action' for executing actions. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to select the right tool.

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