get_traceabilityReturn the diagram→threat→finding→control→requirement→remediation traceability matrix for a scan in your scope, with coverage metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | Yes | Code-review scan id |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, already indicating no side effects. The description adds value by disclosing the returned data structure (diagram→threat→finding→control→requirement→remediation chain and coverage metrics), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions, and the description complements the read-only nature.
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, clear sentence that immediately states the action and output. Every word is purposeful: 'Return' (action), 'diagram→threat→finding→control→requirement→remediation traceability matrix' (output), 'for a scan in your scope' (scope), 'with coverage metrics' (additional output). No 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?
Given no output schema, the description fully describes the return value (the traceability chain and coverage metrics). The tool has only one required parameter, and the description conveys the output's richness. For a simple retrieval tool, this is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool provides.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a single required parameter (scan_id) described as 'Code-review scan id'. The description adds context by scoping it to 'a scan in your scope', which clarifies access permissions and eligibility, meaningfully supplementing the schema.
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 traceability matrix for a scan, specifying the exact chain (diagram→threat→finding→control→requirement→remediation) and includes coverage metrics. The verb 'return' and resource 'traceability matrix' are specific. Among siblings like get_compliance_status or generate_threat_model, this tool is uniquely for traceability, providing clear differentiation.
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 retrieving traceability of a scan in scope but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The sibling list includes many related tools (e.g., get_diagram_summary, verify_threats_in_code), but the description offers no comparative guidance, leaving the agent to infer appropriate context.
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.