pqc_hybrid_keygen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the construction (hybrid X25519 + ML-KEM-768 with SHA3-256) and a safety caveat, which are genuinely useful behavioral facts. It omits what the returned 'bundle' contains, whether the secret key is ever exposed, and what happens when store_as is not supplied — the secret-key-never-returned fact lives only in the parameter schema, not here.

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 compact sentences: the capability and suite come first, the scope restriction second. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated.

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 zero-required-parameter keygen tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the algorithm, the suite, and the intended usage tier. The main residual gap is return shape — an agent cannot tell from the description whether a handle, a public key, or both come back, though the store_as schema hints at a handle.

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 both parameters are documented with non-trivial semantics ('secret key never returned', overwrite behavior), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond confirming that a keypair bundle is produced and optionally stored.

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 ('Generate') and a precise resource ('hybrid X25519 + ML-KEM-768 keypair bundle'), plus the exact suite string, which is the most distinguishing detail versus the plain pqc_generate_keypair sibling. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is by inference rather than by routing.

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 phrase 'Research/prototyping only' conveys a real usage constraint (do not use in production), which is a meaningful when-to-use signal. However, it gives no positive guidance on when to pick this over pqc_generate_keypair or how it pairs with pqc_hybrid_open/pqc_hybrid_encap, so alternatives remain for the agent to infer.

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