QuantumScan PQC Scanner

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

Discloses no DB scan, instant, rate limits. No annotations exist, so description carries burden. Lacks mention of error handling or output format.

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 key action and purpose, efficient with no 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?

Simple tool with one param, no output schema; description covers behavior, usage, and constraints completely.

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 covers 100% of parameter description. Description adds rate limits but no extra semantics beyond 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 clearly states it performs an instant check for quantum vulnerability of algorithm names, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_repository.

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?

Explicitly says use before calling scan_repository, and provides rate limit details, guiding when and how to use.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool is rate-limited (60 calls/min), returns status progression (submitted, working, completed, failed), and eventually returns a CBOM and risk score. This provides good insight into its read-only, possibly asynchronous nature.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical details (statuses, output format, rate limit). No redundant text.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (status, CBOM, risk score) and includes rate limiting. Missing details on error handling (e.g., invalid scan_id) and clearer differentiation from sibling check_pqc_risk, but overall sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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% for the single parameter scan_id, described as a UUID. The description adds context by noting it is returned by scan_repository, but does not add format or behavioral constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the result of a previously submitted scan, listing possible statuses and the returned data (CBOM and quantum risk score). This distinguishes it from siblings like scan_repository (submits scans) and check_pqc_risk (possibly checks risk without scanning).

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 implies usage after submitting a scan (e.g., via scan_repository) and mentions rate limits, but does not explicitly guide when to use this vs alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of preconditions or exclusions.

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

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

Despite no annotations, description covers synchronicity (immediate), prerequisites, return fields (risk score, findings, migration steps), and rate limits (10/day). Does not mention authentication or side effects, but scanning is read-only.

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?

Four substantive sentences, each adding unique value. Purpose first, then usage, then behavioral traits. No unnecessary words.

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?

Covers essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, return values, rate limit, synchronicity. Could mention output schema details, but description lists key return fields. Differentiates from siblings implicitly.

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 has 100% coverage; description adds context: default network (Ethereum Mainnet), supported chains list, and example address. Reinforces format for contract address.

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 scans verified smart contracts for quantum-vulnerable cryptography and fraud patterns, distinguishing it from siblings like scan_repository (repos) and check_pqc_risk (likely subset).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: before signing, interacting with DeFi, or integrating contracts. Implies when not to use (unverified contracts). Mentions prerequisites (Sourcify verification).

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses asynchronous nature (returns scan_id, poll for result) and rate limits (free tier: 10 scans/day per IP, paid tier with registration). Does not mention error handling for invalid repos.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with action, covers purpose, usage, and limitations without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and low complexity, description adequately explains the workflow, return value, and next steps. No missing critical information.

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 parameter repo_url, which already includes an example. Description adds minimal extra value beyond context of submitting the URL.

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?

Description clearly states the tool submits a repository for PQC vulnerability scanning and returns a scan_id. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_contract which is for contracts, and get_scan_result for polling.

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?

Describes when to use (to scan a repository) and next step (call get_scan_result). Mentions free/paid tiers and registration, but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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