check_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a creditable job: it discloses detection scope down to the nuance that only *lone* X25519/Ed25519 uses are flagged (i.e. hybrid use is not), and it describes the return shape (line-numbered findings, replacements, matching packages). It does not state input size limits, whether it is strictly read-only, or rate/throughput behavior, leaving modest gaps.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the algorithm enumeration doing real work by defining detection scope. The two parenthetical lists make it dense and slightly hard to skim, but nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter, annotation-free analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, detection scope, and return contents — close to what an agent needs. Remaining gaps are operational (input size limits, how to act on the 'matching packages' output) rather than fundamental.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Pasted code or config' does convey the important semantics that the parameter is raw content, not a path or identifier — a genuinely useful clarification. It says nothing about accepted formats, size limits, or multi-file handling, so compensation is partial rather than complete.

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?

States a specific verb (scan) plus the exact resource (pasted code or config) and enumerates what counts as a finding: quantum-vulnerable public-key algorithms (RSA, ECDSA, ECDH, DH, DSA, lone X25519/Ed25519) and classically weak ones (MD5, SHA-1, 3DES, AES-128). None of the siblings (recommend_package, get_snippet, list_packages) scan input, so an agent can route to this tool unambiguously.

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 word 'pasted' hints that this takes inline text rather than a file path or repo reference, which is a real usage constraint, and the detection list implies when it applies. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing and no mention of the natural follow-up siblings (recommend_package for fixes, list_packages for the matching packages it returns). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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