add_gates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a success message is returned but does not disclose validation rules, error handling, or that the gates object allows additional properties beyond 'type' and 'qubits'.

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 reasonably concise, with clear sections for Args and Returns. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is functional.

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?

While an output schema exists (not shown), the description only mentions 'Success message' without details on the response format or potential errors. For a tool with two parameters, it covers the basics but lacks depth.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: circuit_name is the name of the circuit, and gates is a list with 'type' and 'qubits' keys and supported gate types listed. This goes 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 'Add quantum gates to a circuit' and lists supported gates (h, x, y, z, cx, measure, measure_all), distinguishing it from the sibling 'add_advanced_gates' tool.

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 list of supported gates provides implicit guidance that this tool is for basic operations, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs. 'add_advanced_gates' or other tools.

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