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. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a read-only retrieval operation (implied by 'Get' and 'Retrieve'), specifies what information is returned, and provides a concrete example of usage. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (description, Args, Returns, Example) and front-loaded purpose. The example is helpful but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by providing necessary information for tool understanding and usage.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, return structure, and provides an example - effectively compensating for all gaps in structured data.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It provides complete parameter semantics: explains what device_id represents, gives an example value ('20'), and explicitly references the sibling tool to find valid values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 specific action ('Get detailed properties') and resource ('specific QPU device'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_qpu_devices_tool. It uses precise terminology like 'quantum computing device' and 'comprehensive information' to define scope.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool: for retrieving properties of a specific device, with a direct alternative named (list_qpu_devices_tool to find device IDs). The description clearly indicates this is for detailed information after device selection.

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