custom_qubit_model_estimate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions input format for gate times and algorithm constraints but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any other behavioral traits. As an estimation tool, it is likely safe, but the description fails to confirm this or describe side effects.

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 five sentences and front-loads the purpose, followed by usage guidance and details. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. However, the structure could be improved by grouping related information (e.g., algorithm input constraints together).

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 tool's complexity (14 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It provides essential context for when to use the tool and how to specify gate times and algorithm input. However, it does not describe the output format or explain the remaining parameters, relying on user expertise.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for gate time parameters (accepts strings like '50 ns') and mentions instruction_set options. It also states that exactly one of algorithm_template, logical_counts, or qsharp_code must be provided. However, the remaining 9 parameters (error rates, qec_scheme, error_budget) are not described, leaving significant gaps.

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 estimates resources using custom qubit parameters, distinguishing from sibling tools by specifying 'when modeling novel hardware not covered by the 6 predefined qubit models'. It uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('custom physical qubit parameters'), and the sibling tools include 'list_qubit_models' and 'estimate_resources', reinforcing differentiation.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use this when modeling novel hardware not covered by the 6 predefined qubit models.' It also instructs on providing the algorithm via exactly one of three parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the context of siblings implies alternatives exist.

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