qt_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: 'Inspect' and 'enumerates ... reports' make clear this is a read-only introspection operation with no mutation, and it discloses what information is returned per signal. It stops short of stating permission requirements or explicitly affirming no side effects.

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 core purpose and the diagnosing use case are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with zero filler. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but stays short.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the primary ref parameter and use case are covered. However, the undocumented `instance` parameter and no mention of how it interacts with qt_select_instance leave a real gap for a 2-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 documents `ref` well (source: qt_snapshot, example 'w5'), but the second parameter `instance` is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 ('Inspect signal connections on a QObject') and enumerates exactly what is reported: signals, connection state, and receiver counts. This clearly separates it from siblings like qt_invoke_slot or qt_wait_for, which act on signals rather than inspecting them.

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?

Provides a concrete diagnostic scenario ('debugging "nothing happens when I click" problems') that tells the agent when this tool applies. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g., 'use qt_invoke_slot to fire a signal'), so it falls short of a 5.

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