Check whether a domain's TLS is using post-quantum (hybrid ML-KEM) key exchange.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | A bare public hostname to scan, for example example.com. No scheme, path, or port; IP literals and internal hostnames are rejected. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. While the verb 'Check' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, the description does not mention whether a live network scan occurs, what the return value looks like, or any permissions or side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool that might perform external actions.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no waste or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.
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 tool is simple, with one parameter and a clear purpose, and the schema already covers the parameter well. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could have briefly mentioned the return format or any side effects (e.g., that it performs a TLS handshake). The lack of this detail prevents a 5, but the description is still adequate for the tool's basic function.
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% for the single 'domain' parameter, and the schema already provides detailed constraints (bare hostname, no scheme/path/port, rejections). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what is already in the schema, 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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly states the resource (domain's TLS) and the exact property being checked (post-quantum/hybrid ML-KEM key exchange). It distinguishes itself from sibling scan tools by focusing specifically on this protocol, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools scan_domain_trust or scan_security_headers. It only states what the tool does, without any context about which scenarios warrant using it or any alternative tools to consider.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct security scanning area: overall domain trust (DNS/TLS/email), post-quantum TLS, and HTTP security headers. No overlap in purpose or output.
All tools follow a strict 'scan_<object>' pattern, making the action and target clear. Naming is uniform and predictable.
Three tools is well-scoped for a specialized domain scanner. Each tool provides substantial value and covers a key aspect of security post-assessment.
The set covers major security layers (infrastructure, crypto, web) but could include additional scans like TLS version checks or email-specific authentication. Minor gap, easily worked around.
