run_circuit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals it returns a JSON string with measurement results, but does not disclose side effects, performance characteristics, or whether it modifies the circuit. For a simulation tool, this is minimal.

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 extremely concise, using a clear 'Args:' and 'Returns:' format. Every sentence serves a purpose, with the main action stated first. No redundant information.

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 only 2 simple parameters and an implied output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It does not mention that the circuit must exist, error handling, or edge cases. It is minimally complete for a straightforward tool.

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 description lists parameters with brief descriptions matching the schema but adds no additional meaning or constraints. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on 'circuit_name' (e.g., must exist) or 'shots' (range, valid values).

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 purpose: 'Run a quantum circuit on the simulator.' It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('quantum circuit'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_quantum_circuit' (creation) and 'list_circuits' (listing).

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 mentions 'on the simulator', implying it's for simulation rather than hardware, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'analyze_statevector' or 'compute_density_matrix'. No prerequisites or context are given.

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