API security inventory (part of Code Security): discovered API endpoints with authentication status, risk level and risk factors, plus method/risk breakdowns. Company-wide or one scan with scan_id. Reads code_review ApiEndpointDiscovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max endpoints to return | |
| scan_id | No | Optional CodeReviewScan id; company-wide if omitted |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description correctly indicates a read-only operation by stating 'reads code_review ApiEndpointDiscovery' and describing retrieval of inventory. It does not mention any side effects or authorization requirements, but the read intent is clear.
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?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description details what is returned (endpoints with auth status, risk levels, breakdowns) and the data source. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's output and context.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that omitting scan_id retrieves company-wide data, which goes beyond the schema description. The limit parameter is not elaborated, but the overall context is helpful.
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 clearly states the tool provides an API security inventory with discovered endpoints, authentication status, risk levels, and breakdowns. It specifies the scope (company-wide or per scan) and differentiates from sibling tools like get_cloud_compliance or code_review_scan.
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 description implies usage for API security within Code Security and notes when to use scan_id for a specific scan vs company-wide. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like compliance scans.
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.