qt_detect_msvc_and_qt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only ('only *discovers* and *displays*'), does not modify or select anything, and describes the edge-case behavior when nothing is found. This is comprehensive for a non-mutating detection tool.

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 longer than a single sentence, but every sentence serves a purpose: outlining the detection scope, emphasizing non-selection behavior, and giving concrete integration steps with qt_build. It is well-structured with an 'IMPORTANT' callout, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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 description fully explains the tool's role within the workflow, including return values (vs_installations, mingw_toolchains, qt_installations), how to use the results with qt_build, and the fallback for missing installations. Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers all needed context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no input schema to clarify, and the description appropriately focuses on output. It does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline is appropriate.

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 detects MSVC, MinGW toolchains, and Qt installations for building. It specifies the exact resources ('vs_installations', 'mingw_toolchains', 'qt_installations') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like qt_build and qt_attach by focusing on discovery only.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it is the discovery step before qt_build. It includes a mandatory instruction to use AskUserQuestion after calling, explains how to pass results to qt_build for both MSVC and MinGW kits, and tells the user to enter paths manually if detection fails. It also clarifies what the tool does NOT do ('does NOT select an environment automatically'), preventing misuse.

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