Decompose complex problems into orthogonal quantum basis states to generate parallel hypotheses and explore multiple solution branches. Use it to analyze systems and uncover alternative approaches.
Decomposes any complex problem into orthogonal quantum basis states (multi-dimensional parallel hypotheses).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| problem | Yes | The problem or target system to analyze. | |
| intensity | No | MEDIUM |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden and it largely does not: no mention of cost, latency, determinism, permissions, or whether results are ranked or exhaustive. The only disclosure is indirect — the parenthetical hints the output is a set of parallel hypotheses rather than a single answer.
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?
It is a single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and with a parenthetical gloss, so nothing is wasted. However, the space saved is spent on terminology that obscures rather than informs, making the brevity counterproductive.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented enum parameter, the description needed to explain the return shape, the effect of 'intensity', and the relationship to sibling tools. It covers none of this, leaving the definition materially incomplete for 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 coverage is 50%: 'problem' is documented in the schema, while 'intensity' (enum FAST/MEDIUM/HIGH, default MEDIUM) has no description anywhere. The description says nothing about these parameters, so it cannot compensate — an agent has no idea whether 'intensity' controls depth, cost, or token budget.
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 verb 'decomposes' plus the object 'complex problem' gives a rough idea, but the resource is expressed in metaphor ('orthogonal quantum basis states') that an agent cannot map to a concrete operation or result. The parenthetical 'multi-dimensional parallel hypotheses' only partially decodes it, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings such as quantum_solve or quantum_step.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for which task. 'Any complex problem' is a scope claim, not guidance, and with six adjacent quantum_* tools an agent has no basis for routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.