Return before/after code examples for migrating a classical algorithm to a post-quantum / hybrid replacement. Provide an 'algorithm' (RSA, ECDH, ECDSA, …) or a 'ruleId' from a finding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ruleId | No | A finding's ruleId (resolved to its algorithm). | |
| algorithm | No | Classical algorithm family to migrate away from. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a read-only retrieval action ('Return examples'), which is good, but it does not detail return format, handling of both parameters, or error behavior. It is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by input guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns and how to specify inputs. It lacks return structure detail (e.g., whether examples are a list), but this is not critical given the straightforward nature. A 4 is appropriate.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by specifying examples ('RSA, ECDH, ECDSA') and clarifying the exclusive relationship between 'algorithm' and 'ruleId' with 'or', which the schema does not explicitly state. This goes beyond simple restatement.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('before/after code examples'), plus the scope ('migrating a classical algorithm to a post-quantum / hybrid replacement'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like suggest_hybrid by focusing on concrete examples rather than suggestions.
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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: when you have an algorithm (RSA, ECDH, ECDSA) or a ruleId from a finding. It implies the usage scenario but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, making it slightly below a fully specified guideline.
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.
Most tools have clear and distinct purposes, but there is some overlap in the fix/verify area: apply_verified_patch, verify_fix, and remediate_findings all involve verification, which could cause an agent to hesitate on which to use. However, the descriptions differentiate them well (single-fix verification vs. snippet verification vs. batch remediation). Triage and apply_triage are clearly sequential.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lower_snake_case (e.g., check_dependency, list_rules, suggest_hybrid). The only slight variation is apply_verified_patch with an adjective, but it still follows verb_noun structure and the pattern is otherwise uniform.
11 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each serves a distinct function in the post-quantum analysis and remediation workflow: detection, explanation, triage, remediation, and scoring. No obvious redundant tools. The count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set covers analysis (explain_finding, get_fix_examples), triage (triage_findings, apply_triage), remediation (remediate_findings, apply_verified_patch), and scoring (score_delta), but there is no scan tool. All triage/remediation tools require 'findings' arrays from an external scan_path command, which is not exposed as a tool in this server. This creates a significant gap in the workflow, as agents cannot initiate scans without an external dependency.