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 explains key behaviors: capturing windows/widgets, downscaling logic, format options, and the return type (base64-encoded PNG image). However, it lacks details on error conditions, performance implications, or whether the tool is read-only/destructive. The description adds value but doesn't fully cover 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured parameter list with clear explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it lacks information on error handling, performance considerations, or explicit guidance on tool selection versus siblings, leaving minor gaps in 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, defaults, constraints (e.g., 'ref' from qt_snapshot, format options 'png' or 'jpeg', quality range 1-100), and interactions (e.g., quality ignored for PNG). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 with a specific verb ('Take a screenshot') and resource ('entire window or a specific widget'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like qt_snapshot (which likely provides widget references) and qt_vtk_screenshot (which targets VTK scenes). The first sentence directly answers what the tool does.

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 clear context on when to use certain parameters (e.g., 'ref' for specific widgets, omitting it for active window, 'full_window' for top-level windows) and implies usage through parameter explanations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like qt_vtk_screenshot or qt_snapshot, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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