pqc_list_algorithms

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. 'List all available' implies a safe read with no side effects, but it says nothing about whether deprecated or experimental algorithms are included, whether results are grouped, or what the response contains. Not misleading, but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 zero padding. The parenthetical partially restates the enum values already visible in the schema, but it does serve to decode kem/sig for a reader skimming the description.

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?

This is a simple, zero-required-parameter tool, so not much is needed. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only place a caller could learn what a listed algorithm looks like (name, type, security level) or how to use that handle downstream, and it provides none of that.

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 has a documented enum with a default, so the schema already does the work. The description's '(KEMs and signatures)' lightly reinforces what the kem/sig enum values mean, but adds no format or behavior detail beyond that.

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 (List) and resource (available post-quantum cryptographic algorithms), and clarifies the resource spans KEMs and signatures. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling pqc_algorithm_info, which an agent could plausibly pick for a similar need, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is obviously a discovery/enumeration step before calling pqc_generate_keypair or pqc_algorithm_info, but the description never says that. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative such as pqc_algorithm_info for detailed per-algorithm data.

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