quantum_run_sampler

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: quota consumption, asynchronous return of a job ID rather than results, and that dry_run is a preview-only mode by default.

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 short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action, then the safe default, then the consequence of overriding it. 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?

The highest-stakes decision (dry_run vs. submit) and the async job-ID return are covered, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. But for a 6-parameter quantum submission tool with no schema descriptions, missing shots/backend/max_execution_seconds semantics and no sibling differentiation leave notable gaps.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only fully explains dry_run's semantics and default. Shots, backend_name, instance, max_execution_seconds, and the circuit structure receive no explanation anywhere, leaving cost and targeting behavior undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Sample a circuit") plus the measurement scope ("measuring all qubits"). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely named siblings quantum_simulate and quantum_preview, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"Default dry_run previews only. False submits one quota-consuming job" gives a clear decision rule with a cost consequence, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before invoking. It stops short of naming the alternatives (quantum_preview, quantum_simulate) or explaining when each is preferred.

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