veracode_applications

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'list and search' but doesn't describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by page/size parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('List and search Veracode application profiles') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, pagination behavior, and how it differs from sibling tools. With no annotations to fill gaps, this minimal description is insufficient for effective agent use.

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% description coverage, providing clear details for all 5 parameters (e.g., name filtering with partial match, policyCompliance and scanType enums, pagination defaults). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose as 'List and search Veracode application profiles,' which includes both listing and searching functions. It specifies the resource (application profiles) and platform (Veracode), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'veracode_findings' or 'veracode_policy_compliance' that might also involve application data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'veracode_findings' for detailed findings or 'veracode_policy_compliance' for compliance checks, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for application profile listing versus searching.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.