quantaoptima_explain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the explanation and that it concerns the most recent run. However it never states this is a read-only operation, nor the precondition that a prior optimization run must exist. Coverage is adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then two clarifying lines, with no filler prose. The tier-availability sentence is marginal but short and useful to some callers.

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?

For a parameterless read tool with a full output schema, the description supplies enough: it frames the content as a human-readable narrative about the last run. The missing precondition (a completed optimize run) is the only notable gap, and the output schema covers return details.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a 0-param schema is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents the argument surface.

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 (explain) and resource (last optimization run) and enumerates what the explanation covers: what happened, how quantum operators contributed, and whether the result is likely optimal. This distinguishes it from siblings like optimize/benchmark/observe/audit, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus quantaoptima_audit, observe, or status, all of which could plausibly overlap. The only usage-adjacent statement is a tier availability note ('Available on all tiers'), which is licensing info, not invocation guidance.

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