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 mentions 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as performance impact, traversal order, error handling, or output format. The description lacks details on what 'full QObject parent-child tree' entails beyond the basic action.

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: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter explanations 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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It explains the parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it should address more about the tool's operation and 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for both parameters: 'root_ref' is explained as 'Starting ref. Defaults to QApplication root.' and 'max_depth' as 'Maximum traversal depth.' This clarifies their roles beyond the schema's titles ('Root Ref', 'Max Depth'), though it doesn't provide format details for 'root_ref'.

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: 'Get the full QObject parent-child tree (not just visible widgets).' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('QObject parent-child tree'), and distinguishes it from visible widgets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'qt_widget_details' or 'qt_snapshot', which might also involve object inspection.

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 mentions 'not just visible widgets' but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like 'qt_widget_details' or 'qt_list_windows'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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