Check whether a package is in quantakrypto's known quantum-vulnerable dependency database (the classical crypto it exposes). Provide 'name' and optional 'ecosystem' (default npm).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name to look up (e.g. 'node-forge', 'jsonwebtoken'). | |
| ecosystem | No | Package ecosystem. Default: npm. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the database's focus (quantum-vulnerable dependencies and classical crypto exposure) and the default ecosystem, but it does not mention what the tool returns on match/non-match or any other behavioral aspects.
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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by brief parameter instructions. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy.
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 and the purpose is clear, but there is no output schema to define return values. As a 'check' tool, the description should ideally state what a positive or negative result looks like, but it does not.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description essentially restates the parameter names and the default ecosystem, adding little beyond what the schema already defines.
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 specific verb phrase 'Check whether' and clearly identifies the resource: 'quantakrypto's known quantum-vulnerable dependency database'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like triage or remediation tools, 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 includes parameter-level instructions ('Provide name and optional ecosystem') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the sibling alternatives. The usage context is implied from the purpose rather than explicitly articulated.
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 target distinct parts of the PQC remediation workflow (explain, triage, fix, verify), but verify_fix and apply_verified_patch have overlapping purposes: both check code for remaining classical crypto. The latter adds patch-policy and blast-radius gates, making the boundary somewhat blurry.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., list_rules, triage_findings, verify_fix). There are no mixed conventions or unpredictable naming variations.
11 tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized toolkit. Each tool addresses a distinct step in the migration process: understanding, triaging, remediating, verifying, and scoring.
The set covers the core lifecycle: rule discovery, finding explanation, triage, remediation bundling, patch verification, and progress measurement. The only notable gap is that it relies on an external scan_path to provide findings—no scan tool is included—but this appears to be an intentional separation of concerns.