assess_pqc_readiness

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects. It only describes functionality without operational context.

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?

Concise description with front-loaded purpose and structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the 6 parameters and output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and output type. It lacks only some behavioral context, but is otherwise complete.

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 Args section in the description adds meaning to all 6 parameters beyond the bare schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains valid values for data_sensitivity and default behaviors for booleans.

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?

Clearly states it assesses post-quantum cryptography readiness per FIPS 203/204/205, evaluates vulnerability, calculates risk scores, and generates migration roadmaps. Distinguishes from sibling tools like brute_force_xor or caesar_crack by focusing on PQC.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_cnsa_compliance or check_fips_compliance. The description explains parameters but does not provide context for selection.

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