quantum_grade

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool is read-only and explains the scoring logic in detail (e.g., Hook credited only when exact bytecode matches registered hooks). It clarifies the tool is not a safety alarm. This provides good transparency beyond the absence of annotations.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It is concise but includes necessary specifics about the scoring conditions. Slight redundancy could be trimmed (e.g., repeat of 'quantum-policy'), but overall well-structured.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the evaluation factors and the hook condition adequately. The context is sufficient for an agent to understand when to invoke the tool and what it checks.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (address has 'r-address', network has none). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. For example, it does not clarify the format of the address or the possible network values.

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 grades a Xahau account for quantum hardening readiness, listing specific factors (master-key, regular key, multi-sign, quantum-policy Hook) and output a 0-100 score with tier and recommendations. It distinguishes from generic account info tools by focusing on quantum readiness and hardening framing.

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 implies usage for assessing quantum hardening without explicitly comparing to alternatives like 'quantum_scorecard' or 'get_account_hooks'. The note about 'framed as hardening, not a safety alarm' provides some context but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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