get_agent_briefReturn the plain-text site brief describing scope, assumptions, the honesty clause, and the API contract. Mirrors the /agent.txt document served by the website.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds the fact that it 'mirrors /agent.txt served by the website' and lists content categories, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 two sentences with no filler. First sentence states the action and content, second adds provenance. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.
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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what it returns and its source. It is complete for the agent to understand usage and expected output.
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 schema is trivially 100% covered. With 0 params, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details since none exist, but it doesn't need to – it accurately describes a no-input tool.
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's function: 'Return the plain-text site brief describing scope, assumptions, the honesty clause, and the API contract.' It specifies both the action (return) and the resource (site brief), and it is distinct from siblings which are computational/list tools.
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?
While the description doesn't explicitly state 'use when you need the brief' or mention alternatives, the context makes its usage obvious. No sibling tool provides agent briefs, so the intended usage is implicit. It lacks explicit exclusions but is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a clearly distinct role: compute_expectation and compute_required_error_rate are forward/inverse pairs, compare_hardware_scenarios is a batch wrapper for compute_expectation, and the list_* and get_* tools each target a different data category (hardware, timing, historic, examples, codes). The fit_historic_series tool is distinct from get_historic_series (analysis vs. retrieval). No two tools appear ambiguous.
All tool names follow a strict lower_snake_case verb_noun pattern: compute_*, get_*, list_*, fit_*, compare_*. The verbs precisely indicate the action (computation, retrieval, fitting, comparison) and are used consistently across the set.
With 12 tools, the server is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in the quantum resource estimation workflow: data listing, forward/inverse expectation calculations, fault-tolerant resource estimation, rate computation, historic analysis, and context retrieval. No tool feels redundant or unnecessary.
The tool surface comprehensively covers the domain: current hardware data (list_current_quantum_computers, list_hardware_timings), historical trends (get_historic_series, fit_historic_series), algorithm resource examples (list_example_algorithms), error correction codes (list_qldpc_codes), forward and inverse error calculations (compute_expectation, compute_required_error_rate), batch comparison (compare_hardware_scenarios), deep resource estimation (compute_fault_tolerant_resources), a throughput metric (compute_quantum_volume_rate), and the agent brief. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.