qt_snapshot

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output shape, the fields returned, and the ref-addressing mechanism, which implies a read-only capture. However, it says nothing about tree size/cost on large UIs, whether the capture blocks the app, or that the call is non-destructive.

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?

Two tight paragraphs: the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact enumeration of return contents and one actionable follow-up. No filler.

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 needn't be spelled out, and the description is adequate on that axis. But for a four-parameter capture tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the absence of any parameter semantics leaves the agent guessing what root_ref and max_depth actually do.

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 all four parameters and does not. root_ref, max_depth (default 10), and skip_hidden are never mentioned; 'full widget tree' arguably conflicts with the existence of a depth limit and hidden-widget skipping. Only the ref concept is loosely echoed.

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 definition names a specific verb and resource ('Capture the full Qt widget tree as a structured accessibility-like snapshot') and lists exactly what the output contains, so the agent knows precisely what it gets. It stops short of differentiating from near-identical siblings like qt_object_tree or qt_scene_snapshot, which an agent would plausibly confuse with this one.

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 the refs to interact with specific widgets via other tools' gives downstream usage context, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over qt_object_tree, qt_scene_snapshot, or qt_find_widget. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated.

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