QC-017 Superdense coding. decoded 2 bits must equal sent 2 bits. Floats refused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bits | Yes | the two bits sent, e.g. 10 | |
| decoded | Yes | the two bits decoded at the receiver, must equal bits, e.g. 10 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / bits / descriptionAdded value: +"the two bits sent, e.g. 10"Input schema / properties / decoded / descriptionAdded value: +"the two bits decoded at the receiver, must equal bits, e.g. 10"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[]New value: +[
+ "bits",
+ "decoded"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behavioral traits beyond the schema: the equality assertion semantics ('decoded must equal sent') and an input-validation rule ('Floats refused'). However, it says nothing about what happens on mismatch (error vs. false result) or the shape of the verification outcome, and no output schema exists to fill that gap.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the invariant and the type rule each get one line. The bare 'QC-017' code label is slightly opaque but costs almost nothing.
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 simple two-parameter equality-check tool, the description covers purpose, invariant, and type validation. It stops short of describing failure behavior or the verification result, which matters for a verify_* tool with no output schema and no annotations.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both required string parameters with examples. The description adds only the type restriction ('Floats refused'), which is marginal since the schema already types both as strings. Baseline 3 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?
Names the specific protocol (Superdense coding / QC-017) and states the exact invariant being verified: decoded 2 bits must equal sent 2 bits. This clearly separates it from quantum siblings like verify_teleport or verify_bell_measurement, though the action verb ('verify') is only implied by the tool name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many other verify_* primitives, no stated prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the protocol name.
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.