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 describes what the tool does (reports thread ownership, flags issues, lists instances) but lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or output format. It adds some context about GUI freezes 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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second details specific checks, and the third lists additional outputs. Each sentence adds value without waste, and it's front-loaded with the main 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 complexity (threading analysis) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, key checks, and common issues, but could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on tool functionality without redundant parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero parameters.

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 specific verbs ('check thread affinity', 'detect threading issues') and resources ('QObjects', 'QWidget subclasses', 'QThread instances'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on thread analysis rather than UI interaction, property setting, or other Qt operations.

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 implies usage context through 'detect threading issues' and 'flags QWidget subclasses on non-GUI threads (the #1 cause of GUI freezes)', suggesting this tool is for debugging threading problems. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like qt_layout_check or qt_signals, nor does it provide exclusions.

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