IvedaAI: Authentication

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral details by documenting response JSON fields: status, truncated, and timedOut flags. This warns about possible cut-off responses, which is beyond what annotations convey. It does not, however, detail error responses or credential failure behavior.

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 compact and well-structured: it states the endpoint, its purpose, and response semantics in a few lines. No fluff or unnecessary repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by explaining response semantics. It clearly indicates the operation gets an X-Auth-Token, but it doesn't specify where the token appears (header vs body) or how to use it. For a simple one-operation tool, this is nearly complete but could be slightly more explicit.

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 generic parameter descriptions for body, file, path, query, and operation, but the tool description adds specific body fields (password, username) and specifies the only valid operation. This enriches the generic body parameter with concrete, meaningful structure.

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?

Description clearly states the tool handles authentication operations, specifically the POST /api/auth endpoint to retrieve an X-Auth-Token. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other API resources.

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 context that this is for authentication, implying it should be used to obtain a token, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling auth-related tools like oauth or multi_factor_authentication. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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