compare_configurations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (side-by-side comparison table with specific columns) and default behavior (compare all 4 gate-based models). No destructive effects or auth needs are mentioned, which is appropriate for a non-mutating 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 well-structured with sections for algorithm and hardware selection, and front-loads the main purpose. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value and the structure aids readability.

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?

Given the complexity of 8 parameters with no schema descriptions or annotations, the description covers algorithm specification, hardware selection methods, and output details. It lacks detail on qec_scheme and error_budget parameters, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning for algorithm parameters (exactly one of three) and hardware selection parameters (explains four approaches with examples). However, it does not elaborate on qec_scheme or error_budget beyond their defaults.

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 it compares resource estimates across multiple hardware configurations, with specific verb 'Compare' and resource 'resource estimates.' It distinguishes from siblings like estimate_resources (likely single config) and list_qubit_models (just lists) by focusing on comparative analysis.

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 clear context: algorithm must be specified one of three ways, and hardware selection has four explicit options with defaults. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it vs alternatives, the guidelines are detailed and practical.

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