get_circuit_info

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It states the return type (JSON string with circuit information) but does not disclose side effects, error handling, or permissions. For a read operation, it is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 a clear structure (Args/Returns) and no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool is simple and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description lacks details about what 'circuit information' includes (e.g., qubits, gates, depth). Also, no mention of preconditions or error cases. It is adequate but not thorough.

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%, and the description adds only the meaning of 'circuit_name' as 'Name of the circuit'. This clarifies the parameter beyond the schema's title ('Circuit Name') but is very brief. With a single parameter, this is baseline adequate.

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 action ('Get information') and the resource ('a quantum circuit'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_circuits' (which likely lists circuit names) and 'analyze_statevector' (which analyzes state outputs).

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 when you need details of a specific circuit by name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_statevector' or 'visualize_circuit'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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