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 effectively explains that the tool returns authentication status and account information, clarifies the session-based authentication context, and details the return structure. This adds valuable context beyond what the input schema (empty) provides, though it could mention potential errors or limitations more explicitly.

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 structured with a purpose statement, context explanation, and return details, but it could be more front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, but the following sentences about authentication context and return values, while useful, might be verbose for a tool with no inputs. Some trimming could improve efficiency without losing clarity.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, provides authentication context, and details the return structure, which compensates for the lack of annotations. However, it could better integrate with sibling tools to enhance completeness.

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 baseline is 4 as per rules. The description doesn't need to add parameter information since there are none, and it appropriately focuses on output semantics instead, which is acceptable given the context.

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 states the tool 'List saved account information' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'active_account_info_tool' or 'setup_origin_quantum_account_tool', leaving ambiguity about when to use this versus those alternatives. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'session-based authentication' context, which implies usage for checking authentication status, but it doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without clear when/when-not instructions, users might struggle to choose between this and tools like 'active_account_info_tool'.

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