quantum_solve

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses that the tool runs an autonomous multi-pass search and performs "exact convergence verification," which usefully signals results are validated. It stops short of stating side effects, latency/cost behavior implied by the intensity setting, or whether the call mutates any state, so real operational gaps remain.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Minor deduction because terms like "superposition search" are evocative jargon that consumes space without conveying concrete 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, yet it never describes what the solver returns (patches, analysis text, pass/fail verification) or how long an autonomous solve may take. For a potentially long-running autonomous tool among six closely related siblings, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents target, model, provider, and intensity with an enum. The description adds no meaning beyond that (it never mentions intensity levels, provider overrides, or what a "target" may contain), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ("Solves") and enumerates resource classes (coding, research, diagnostic problems), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like quantum_step, quantum_explore_branches, or quantum_init_task, which an agent must disambiguate between.

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?

Use is only implied by the qualifier "complex" coding/research/diagnostic problems, and "Autonomous" hints this is a one-shot end-to-end call. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over quantum_step or quantum_explore_branches, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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