veracode_policy_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does ('Check policy compliance status') but fails to describe key behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the core functionality.

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 complexity of checking policy compliance with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of applications with compliance details), how pagination works with the 'page' and 'size' parameters, or behavioral aspects like error handling. This leaves gaps for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('policy compliance status for Veracode applications'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling tools like 'veracode_applications' or 'veracode_findings', which might also relate to compliance information, preventing a perfect score.

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, such as the sibling tools listed. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and parameters alone.

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