IvedaAI: EngineObject

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds useful context about the response envelope ('status', 'truncated', 'timedOut'), but does not describe response content or additional behavior like auth requirements or rate limits, keeping it at a moderate level.

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 front-loaded with the response note and endpoint. The query parameters are listed efficiently. However, the opening 'IvedaAI API — EngineObject operations.' is somewhat redundant with the endpoint line, though it does provide context.

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 simple list operation, the description covers the essential request details (query parameters) and the response envelope. It does not explain the content of EngineObjects or any pagination defaults, but since no output schema is provided, these gaps are notable yet not severe. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for basic invocation.

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 defines the 'query' parameter as an open object with additionalProperties, so it does not enumerate specific query parameters. The description compensates fully by listing all query parameters (offset, page, pageSize, sort, etc.) with their types, adding critical meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the operation as 'GET /api/engine-objects — List EngineObjects', which gives a specific verb and resource. However, it does not provide an explicit comparison to sibling tools or clarify what an EngineObject is, so it falls short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists the operation and parameters, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or other tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the resource name.

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