Research Assistant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is met. The description adds real value beyond them: the return payload shape ('research text or sample framework code') and an explicit side-effect boundary ('it does not submit QPU work'). It does not cover auth needs, rate limits, or latency, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then the return shape, then the alternative. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating what is returned. It covers purpose, return type, side-effect boundary, and the sibling alternative, leaving only minor gaps such as supported framework values and what 'NISQ-honest' constrains in the output.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by mapping natural-language intents to the terse enum values: 'draft a NISQ-honest quantum-circuit design' clarifies quantum_design, and 'critique an ML/CS paper' clarifies paper_critique. It does not clarify the free-form 'framework' or 'focus' inputs, which remain thin in the 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 states specific verbs and resources: 'draft a NISQ-honest quantum-circuit design' or 'critique an ML/CS paper'. It also differentiates from the sibling bee_quantum_reasoning_run by name, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

It clearly states the two use contexts (design drafting, paper critique) and names the correct alternative for a different need ('Use bee_quantum_reasoning_run for a durable hosted Lab job'). It lacks guidance against other plausible siblings like bee_chat or bee_code, but the primary routing decision is explicit.

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