QC-013 VQE problem, not the variational search. Same ZZ law as execute_2local_hamiltonian. Presented config energy. Floats refused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| config | Yes | computational bits s0,s1,... each 0 or 1, one per site, comma-separated, e.g. 0,1 | |
| constraints | Yes | ZZ terms i,j,jnum,jden separated by ;, e.g. 0,1,1,1 (sites 0 and 1, coupling 1/1) - the same law as execute_2local_hamiltonian |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / config / descriptionAdded value: +"computational bits s0,s1,... each 0 or 1, one per site, comma-separated, e.g. 0,1"Input schema / properties / constraints / descriptionAdded value: +"ZZ terms i,j,jnum,jden separated by ;, e.g. 0,1,1,1 (sites 0 and 1, coupling 1/1) - the same law as execute_2local_hamiltonian"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[]New value: +[
+ "config",
+ "constraints"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses one input rejection rule ('Floats refused') and references the ZZ law, but says nothing about return values, side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving major behavioral gaps.
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 very short and front-loads the most important distinction first. However, the telegraphic sentence fragments ('Presented config energy. Floats refused.') trade clarity for brevity, preventing a perfect score.
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 domain-specific verification tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the energy is presented, or how to interpret the result, so an agent lacks essential context for correct invocation.
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 parameters in detail. The description adds only the 'Floats refused' constraint and a cross-reference to execute_2local_hamiltonian, which is useful but limited beyond the schema baseline.
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 identifies the domain (QC-013 VQE problem) and distinguishes it from the variational search, but the core action is only implied by 'Presented config energy' rather than stated as a clear verb+resource. The name 'verify_vqe_energy' helps, yet the description alone leaves an agent guessing whether it computes, checks, or expects an energy value.
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 only usage guidance is the negative 'not the variational search', which excludes a concept rather than naming a specific alternative tool. It references execute_2local_hamiltonian for the ZZ law but does not explain when to use this tool instead of that sibling or other verify_* tools.
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.