get_diagram_summaryThe canonical diagram summary every badge/card/header reads: threat counts by severity, risk value, compliance and framework coverage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagram_id | Yes | Diagram id/uuid |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the summary content (threat counts by severity, risk value, compliance, framework coverage), which goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and content. Every word adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary details.
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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description is complete. It explains what the summary contains, compensating for the lack of an output schema. However, it could mention if the response is paginated or limited to certain data.
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 single parameter diagram_id described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 returns a canonical diagram summary with specific components (threat counts, risk value, compliance, framework coverage), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_framework_coverage or get_insights which are more specific.
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 badges/cards/headers (quick display), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide guidance on selecting between siblings. Usage is implied, not explicit.
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.