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. It discloses that the tool inspects and enumerates connections, reporting connected status and receiver counts, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a use case and parameter details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, why to use it, and parameter semantics, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like output format hints. The output schema existence reduces the need to describe return values.

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 explains the 'ref' parameter as a 'Widget ref from qt_snapshot (e.g., 'w5')', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic string type. This effectively clarifies the parameter's purpose and source, though it doesn't cover all potential edge cases.

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 specific action ('Inspect signal connections') and resource ('on a QObject'), distinguishing it from siblings like qt_click or qt_get_text. It provides a concrete use case ('debugging "nothing happens when I click" problems'), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 includes clear context ('For a given widget/object') and implies usage for debugging signal-related issues, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. It provides practical guidance without exclusions or comparisons to other tools.

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