code_review_scanStart (or re-run) a code-security scan for an existing scan/repository in your scope. Returns a poll pointer; results include SAST, secrets, deps, pipeline review and the traceability matrix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | Yes | Id of an existing code-review scan to (re)run |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). Description adds that it returns a poll pointer (asynchronous behavior). However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or effects on previous scans.
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 sentences covering purpose, resource, and return value. No filler, every phrase earns its place.
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?
Tool has no output schema, so description should explain return value more fully. It mentions 'poll pointer' but doesn't clarify how to use it or that results are not immediate. Among many siblings, it stands out but could be more 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% with one parameter. Description adds context: 'scan_id' is used to (re)run an existing scan, and the tool returns a poll pointer. This goes beyond the schema's description of the parameter.
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?
Description clearly states action ('start or re-run'), resource ('code-security scan for an existing scan/repository'), and what it returns ('poll pointer; results include...'). Distinguishes from siblings like 'compliance_scan' and 'get_traceability' by specifying it's for code security scans.
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?
Description implies you need an existing scan ('for an existing scan/repository in your scope'), but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, nor includes when-not-to-use or exclusions. Sibling tools have different purposes but no direct comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., apply vs. get remediation, scan vs. status). A few pairs like get_insights and get_diagram_summary overlap slightly in metrics but descriptions clarify differences. No major ambiguity.
Predominantly verb_noun pattern (apply_, get_, generate_). However, code_review_scan and compliance_scan are noun phrases without a leading verb, and compliance_status is noun_noun, introducing minor inconsistency.
15 tools is at the upper end of typical but still reasonable for a security platform covering scanning, remediation, threat modeling, billing, and reporting. Each tool serves a clear function; no obvious bloat.
Covers core workflows: code/cloud/compliance scanning, threat modeling, remediation (dry-run and apply), traceability, insights. Minor gaps like missing scan listing or account management, but these align with the platform's assessment focus.