veracode_scan_status

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 it 'Get[s] scan status and summary report', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the 'summary report' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external APIs.

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 unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured by including key details like authentication or output format.

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 interacting with a Veracode API (implied by the tool name), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as authentication needs, rate limits, error scenarios, and details on the 'summary report' output. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'applicationGuid' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of the GUID or where to find it. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'scan status and summary report for a Veracode application', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'veracode_applications' or 'veracode_findings', which might also retrieve application-related information.

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 like 'veracode_applications' or 'veracode_findings'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing application, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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