get_framework_coverageCompliance-framework coverage for a diagram (real, ControlCodeMap-backed), optionally for one framework, plus an optional crossmap relationship graph. Wraps derive_framework_coverage + crossmap_cypher.build_graph.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| framework | No | Optional framework filter (e.g. 'NIST-800-53', 'SOC2') | |
| diagram_id | Yes | Diagram pk or uuid | |
| include_graph | No | Also return the crossmap node/edge graph |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by revealing that the tool wraps two internal functions (derive_framework_coverage and crossmap_cypher.build_graph), implying it is computationally heavier than a simple query. No contradictions with annotations.
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-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. Every sentence adds value, including the implementation detail which aids transparency. Highly concise while informative.
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 three parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return includes coverage and optionally a graph. However, it does not describe the structure of coverage or the graph format. Adequate for a simple getter but leaves some gaps for an agent needing to parse results.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description rephrases the optional parameters but does not add new semantic information beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any missing schema details.
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 states 'Compliance-framework coverage for a diagram' with specifics about being 'real, ControlCodeMap-backed' and optional graph. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like compliance_status or compliance_scan, which could have overlapping functionality.
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 getting coverage with optional crossmap graph, but it does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or explicit context such as filtering by framework. The agent lacks clear decision criteria.
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.