IvedaAI: Counting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the response JSON structure, including 'status' as HTTP code and 'truncated'/'timedOut' flags indicating cut-off responses. This goes beyond the annotations and 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 compact and well-organized: a brief summary, a response note, and a list of two endpoints with their parameters. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. The formatting is scannable and front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only tool with two endpoints, the description covers the key parameters and response flag behavior. It lacks some details like pagination or default sort order, but given the simplicity of the operations and the presence of annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

Although the input schema has generic 'query' and 'path' objects with no specific properties defined, the description enumerates each query parameter with its type, format, and enum values (e.g., measure enum). This is essential for correct invocation and adds meaning far beyond the schema's placeholder descriptions.

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 this tool handles 'Counting operations' and lists two specific GET endpoints: dashboard and history. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the 'Counting' scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like ivedaai_statistic or ivedaai_detection.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and summary ('Counting operations'), but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description also does not clarify when to choose 'dashboard' versus 'history' beyond their names. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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