list_available_quantum_backends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context: each call reads the public list interface in real time and uses no cache, which explains why results may vary and aligns with openWorldHint. This is beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and provides essential parameter guidance and a behavioral note without waste. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the parameter values, and the real-time behavior. No additional explanations of return values are needed since an output schema exists.

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 schema defines backend_type as an enum with values all, quantum_computer, and simulator, but lacks descriptive text. The description explicitly lists these possible values and ties them to the tool's purpose of filtering between quantum computers and simulators, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on the differences between the two backend types beyond their names.

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 tool lists currently running quantum computers and simulators on Tianyan Cloud. It uses a specific verb ('查询' / query) and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_quantum_backend (which likely retrieves a single backend) and submit_quantum_experiment (which submits jobs).

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 listing available backends, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides context about the backend_type parameter and real-time data fetching, but no clear exclusion or alternative comparisons. Since sibling tool names suggest different purposes, the usage is implied rather than explicit.

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