vulnforge_audit_pqc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at side effects ('automated policy synthesis', 'canary sandbox verification') without saying whether artifacts are written, whether the sandbox mutates anything, what permissions are needed, or what the result contains. The CWE count is also internally inconsistent — '8 critical vulnerability vectors' followed by only six CWE identifiers — which weakens trust in the stated scope.

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?

It is a single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and the audited artifact types. However, buzzword-dense trailing clauses ('automated policy synthesis and canary sandbox verification') consume space without resolving any decision the caller must make.

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?

Eight parameters with zero required fields, no annotations, and no output schema leave major questions open: what happens if no content/filePath is supplied, whether the audit reads a file or inline text preferentially, and what the tool returns. For a tool of this parameter richness, the description does far too little.

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% and all eight parameters, including the three strict* flags with their defaults, are documented there. The description adds only interpretive context (FIPS 203, ML-KEM, TLS 1.3/SSH) that helps an agent understand what the format enum values mean, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Audits') plus a tightly scoped resource set: ML-KEM/Kyber hybrid KEM, FIPS 203 migration, TLS 1.3/SSH KEX, X.509 hybrid certs. This domain specificity naturally separates it from siblings like vulnforge_audit_ebpf or vulnforge_audit_iam, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The agent gets no signal on how this relates to overlapping siblings such as vulnforge_audit_kms_hsm (KEM envelope), vulnforge_full_scan, or vulnforge_inject_patch, nor when a full scan should be preferred.

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