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 the tool 'Get all items', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'items' includes (e.g., graphical objects, properties), whether it returns structured data, or any limitations (e.g., performance, access permissions). The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with 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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main function, and there's no wasted text. However, the structure could be improved by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly or adding brief usage context.

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 has an output schema (which likely defines the return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and one parameter, the description is minimal but covers the basics: purpose and parameter semantics. It's adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth for effective agent use, such as error handling or example usage.

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 meaning for the single parameter 'ref' by explaining it's a 'Ref to a QGraphicsView widget', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic compensation but doesn't detail format (e.g., how to obtain the ref) or constraints. The baseline is 3 due to the low parameter count, but the added value is limited.

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 states the tool 'Get all items in a QGraphicsScene', which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('items in a QGraphicsScene'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'qt_snapshot' or 'qt_object_tree', which might have overlapping functionality for retrieving UI elements. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 (e.g., requires a QGraphicsView widget reference), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'qt_snapshot' or 'qt_object_tree' for similar tasks. Usage is implied from the parameter description but not explicitly stated.

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