pqc_envelope_inspect

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the important traits that no decryption occurs and no secret keys are required, which implies a safe read-only operation. However, it says nothing about error behavior on malformed envelopes, whether integrity is validated, or what metadata categories are surfaced, leaving meaningful behavioral 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?

Two short sentences, both of which carry information, with the key safety constraint front-loaded. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-parameter, key-free inspection tool the description covers what it does and its key safety property; but with no output schema present, the absence of any indication of what metadata is returned leaves a real gap an agent cannot fill elsewhere. Reasonable but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented in the schema itself, including which tools produce a valid envelope, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the qualifier 'sealed or authenticated', which adds little beyond the schema's enumeration of source tools; 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?

The description gives a specific verb (inspect) and resource (envelope metadata) and adds a key distinguishing constraint — 'without decrypting' — which separates it from the decrypting siblings such as pqc_hybrid_open and pqc_hybrid_auth_open. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being routed to it.

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 secret keys needed' implies the condition under which this tool is preferable to the open/decrypt variants, but the guidance is inferred rather than stated. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' sentence and no statement of when inspection is insufficient and full decryption is required.

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