add_advanced_gates

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It states modification of a circuit and return of a success message, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting existing gates, prerequisites like circuit existence) or authorization.

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 concise, with clear Args and Returns sections, no redundant information, and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 open schema for gates (array of objects with additionalProperties), the description is incomplete: it does not explain the expected object format or provide examples. The output schema exists but is not detailed in the description.

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%, but the description adds meaning by naming the circuit_name parameter and listing supported gate operations for the gates array. However, it does not specify the structure of individual gate objects (e.g., required fields for qubits and parameters).

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 adds advanced quantum gates beyond basic H, X, Y, Z, CX, and lists supported gates. It differentiates from the sibling 'add_gates' which likely handles basic gates.

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 advanced gates by listing supported types and contrasting with basic gates. It does not explicitly state when not to use, e.g., for basic gates use add_gates, but the implication is clear.

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