Cloud security & compliance posture (Cloud Compliance): per connected cloud account, the latest CIS/NIST cloud-policy scan — compliance %, failing policies/records, status — plus a company rollup. Reads customers.Account.latest_scan -> compliances.ScanResults.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | No | Optional single cloud Account id; all company accounts if omitted |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Reads ...') and describes the data source. It lists output elements (compliance %, failing policies/records, status, rollup), providing decent transparency, though it lacks mention of side effects, permissions, or caching behavior.
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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and avoids fluff. It is concise and structured, though slightly longer than the ideal one-sentence summary.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, input parameter, output elements, and data source. It could be more complete by explicitly stating it is read-only, but overall it is adequate.
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 a clear description of the single optional parameter. The description does not add additional parameter context beyond the schema, but baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents it well.
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 retrieves cloud compliance posture, specifying CIS/NIST scans, per account and company rollup. It is specific about the resource and output, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling compliance tools like compliance_scan or compliance_status.
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 through its topic (cloud security compliance posture), but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compliance_scan or get_framework_coverage, nor does it mention when not to use it.
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.