提交 IsingQ 组合优化求解

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, open-world, idempotent and non-read-only, but the description adds meaningful context: the QUBO is converted to a matrix, the local personal API key is used, a remote task is created, and a user-confirmation gate is mandatory. It stops short of disclosing cost/quota or rate limits for the remote submission.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what happens on invocation and followed by the mandatory pre-call confirmation workflow. No filler, though it could be tightened by naming the alternative validation tool.

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 explained, and the confirmation workflow is covered. Still, for a destructive, open-world remote submission with nested objects and 0% parameter documentation, missing guidance on solver_options and idempotency_key leaves the agent under-informed for safe invocation.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only indirectly explains model_summary (shown to the user for confirmation) and implies qubo; solver_options and idempotency_key — the key that prevents duplicate costly submissions — are never addressed.

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 a specific verb and resource: it converts the QUBO to a matrix and creates a remote solve task via the local IsingQ API key. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like isingq_qubo_validate (validate only) and isingq_solve_poll (poll status), though it does not name them explicitly.

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 gives a real precondition — the agent must display the model summary and matrix SHA-256 and obtain user confirmation before calling, and the Host may re-confirm. However, it offers no routing guidance among siblings, e.g. whether isingq_qubo_validate should run first, leaving sequencing implied.

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