pqc_key_store_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the key is returned as raw material or an opaque handle, what happens when the name does not exist, whether the store must be unlocked/authenticated, or whether loading has side effects. For a key-material operation, these are significant 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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though it edges toward under-specification rather than tight economy.

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 key-store retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least indicate what comes back (key bytes vs. a reference) and how a missing-key condition behaves. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to reason about the result or error path.

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 the single parameter is already documented as "Name of the stored key." The description's phrase "by name" merely restates that, adding no naming convention, case-sensitivity, or lookup-failure meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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?

"Load a stored key by name" states a specific verb (load) and resource (stored key) within the key-store family, which implicitly separates it from pqc_key_store_save, _list, and _delete. It stops short of naming those siblings or stating what a loaded key becomes, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says this is the prerequisite step before pqc_encapsulate/pqc_sign operations using a persisted key, and nothing states when NOT to use it (e.g., in-memory keys from pqc_generate_keypair). Usage is only inferable from the name.

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