Escapes local reasoning traps and defensive bottlenecks by forcing a lateral quantum tunnel leap when conventional approaches fail on a target problem.
Forces an out-of-the-box lateral quantum tunnel leap to escape local reasoning traps or defensive bottlenecks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | The target problem. | |
| bottleneck | Yes | The wall, error, or defensive barrier where conventional approaches failed. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say what the tool actually does operationally, whether it is a read or a state-changing operation, what it returns, or what the cost/effect of "forcing" a leap is; "quantum tunnel" remains undefined jargon.
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 padding or repetition. It loses a point only because the dense metaphor costs more interpretation than a plain statement of the action would.
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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what invoking it produces or changes. Instead it leaves the mechanism and result entirely opaque, which is inadequate for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.
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 both parameters (target, bottleneck) are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description's "local reasoning traps or defensive bottlenecks" loosely reinforces the bottleneck parameter but adds no format, granularity, or example detail beyond the schema.
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 uses a concrete verb ("Forces") plus a named action ("lateral quantum tunnel leap") and states the goal ("escape local reasoning traps or defensive bottlenecks"), which hints at a lateral-thinking escape tool. However, the phrasing is heavily metaphorical, and it never distinguishes this from siblings such as quantum_explore_branches or quantum_solve, so an agent cannot confidently separate their roles.
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?
"To escape local reasoning traps or defensive bottlenecks" implies a usage condition — call this when conventional approaches are stuck. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling alternatives (quantum_step, quantum_explore_branches, quantum_solve) that an agent would need to route between.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.