quantum_configuration

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful security context beyond annotations: it confirms that credential presence is reported without reading or returning the API key, which is important for choosing this tool safely.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every phrase contributes to clarifying scope or security behavior.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the purpose and the key security constraint without needing to describe return structure.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully described, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics in this case.

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 names a specific verb ('Show') and concrete resources ('credential presence' and 'configured limits'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling, but its configuration/credential focus is naturally distinct from the job, backend, and instance tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs to check whether credentials exist or what limits are configured. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no alternatives are named.

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