isingq_qubo_validateDeterministically validates Agent-generated sparse QUBO models for combinatorial optimization, checking 1-2048 variables, matrix size, and coefficient summaries locally.
确定性校验 Agent 为组合优化问题生成的稀疏 QUBO，检查 1 至 2048 个变量、矩阵规模和系数摘要；完全本地执行。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| qubo | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | 工具调用是否成功 | |
| data | No | 成功时返回的数据 | |
| error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: determinism (确定性), full local execution with no network call (完全本地执行), and an explicit variable-count bound of 1–2048.
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?
A single dense sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler; locality and bounds are packed in efficiently. Slightly overloaded with three separate checked quantities in one clause, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Given a 1-parameter tool, the description covers scope, limits, and execution model adequately; only the input QUBO object's expected shape is unaddressed.
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 coverage is 0% for the single required nested 'qubo' object, so the description must compensate. It does say what is checked (variable count, matrix scale, coefficient summary), but never describes the expected structure/shape of the qubo object the agent must supply, leaving a meaningful gap.
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?
Names a specific verb (校验/validate) and resource (稀疏 QUBO), and scopes it precisely: deterministic validation of agent-generated QUBOs for combinatorial optimization. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like isingq_solve_start and isingq_solve_result_get.
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 the validation context (QUBO generated by the Agent for combinatorial optimization problems), but never states when to call it versus the solve tools, nor any precondition such as "run before isingq_solve_start" or any when-not guidance. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.