QPanda3 Runtime MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a read-only operation ('Get information') and specifies the return structure, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the information is cached or real-time. The description adds basic context but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clarifying details about what's returned. The 'Returns:' section is somewhat redundant with the preceding sentence but provides structured output details. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though the repetition slightly reduces optimal structure.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, specifies the scope ('currently active account'), and outlines the return structure. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to exhaustively detail return values. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error conditions) to be fully comprehensive.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. It adds value by clarifying that this tool retrieves information about the 'currently active' account, providing semantic context beyond the empty schema.

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's purpose: 'Get information about the currently active account' with specific details about what information is returned (channel type, connection status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_saved_accounts_tool' by focusing on the currently active session account rather than listing all saved accounts. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other account-related tools beyond this implicit 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 implies usage context by specifying 'currently active account' and 'account being used in the current session,' suggesting this tool should be used when needing details about the account currently in use. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_saved_accounts_tool' or 'setup_origin_quantum_account_tool,' nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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