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 effectively describes the output format ('YAML-like text tree'), content details (widget types, geometry, etc.), and how the output can be used ('refs to interact with specific widgets via other tools'). It doesn't mention performance, rate limits, or prerequisites, but covers core behavior well for a read operation.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the purpose, second details the output, third explains usage of refs. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core action.

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 (capturing widget tree), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, the output format, and how to use the results. The main gap is lack of parameter documentation, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail.

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 for parameter documentation. It doesn't mention any of the three parameters (max_depth, root_ref, skip_hidden), leaving them entirely undocumented. However, with an output schema present, some burden is reduced. The baseline is lowered due to lack of parameter info, but not severely since parameters have defaults and are optional.

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 ('capture the full Qt widget tree') and resource ('Qt widget tree'), distinguishing it from siblings like qt_screenshot (visual capture) or qt_object_tree (structural tree). It specifies the output format ('structured accessibility-like snapshot') and content, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for when to use this tool: to get a comprehensive snapshot of widget states for accessibility or interaction purposes. It mentions using refs with other tools, implying integration with siblings like qt_click. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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