qt_widget_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call returns all Qt properties, geometry, and parent chain, which helps set expectations for a read operation. But 'and more' is vague, and it says nothing about side effects, instance selection behavior, or how the tool behaves when multiple instances exist.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler sentences. The one weakness is the vague closing phrase 'and more', which is not informative enough to earn its place.

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 tool is relatively simple, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail. Still, the description omits the optional instance parameter and provides no annotation-equivalent context for behavior, so it is only adequate.

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 does well for the required 'ref' parameter by explaining that it comes from qt_snapshot and giving an example, but it never mentions the optional 'instance' parameter, leaving that behavior undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed properties of a specific widget.' That is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish it from siblings such as qt_snapshot or qt_object_tree, so it stops short of a 5.

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 by stating that the ref comes from qt_snapshot, which gives useful provenance. It does not state when to use this instead of qt_snapshot, qt_object_tree, or qt_find_widget, nor does it give exclusions.

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