qt_find_anywhere

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the cross-process scope and part of the hit payload (instance name + ref), but says nothing about cost/latency of scanning every app, what happens on zero hits, or how the min_score threshold changes behavior. Read-only intent is implied but never stated.

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?

Three short lines, zero waste, with the cross-app scope and the when-to-use condition front-loaded before the follow-up action. Nothing redundant relative to the structured fields.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description adequately covers the tool's identity and follow-up workflow. For an 8-parameter, zero-annotation search tool though, the filtering and scoring parameters an agent must set correctly are entirely unaddressed.

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?

Eight parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains essentially none of them — describe, min_score, class_name, object_name, max_results, visible_only and search_fields are all left to guesswork. Only the semantic nature of the query is hinted at; the `instance` reference discussed belongs to other tools, not this schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Semantic widget search') plus explicit scope ('across ALL running Qt apps at once'), which implicitly separates it from the single-instance sibling qt_find_widget. An agent can tell which finder to reach for without opening a schema.

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?

'Use when you do not know which app has the widget' gives a clear selection condition, and the second sentence tells the agent what to do with a hit (pass the instance id to qt_screenshot, qt_click, ... with the ref). It never names qt_find_widget as the alternative for the known-app case, so the exclusion is only implied.

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