IvedaAI: Event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description includes a DELETE endpoint, which is consistent. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the response JSON structure (status, truncated/timedOut flags) and the availability of pagination-related query parameters. No contradiction exists.

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 dense but well-organized by endpoint, and every line conveys necessary parameter information. It avoids fluff and uses a compact notation, though the volume of detail requires careful parsing. The front-loaded response JSON note is helpful.

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 multi-endpoint tool with no output schema, the description covers all operations with their parameters and notes response truncation behavior. It does not provide examples, error handling, or authentication context, but for the complexity involved, it is fairly complete. The absence of an output schema makes the response JSON note especially valuable.

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 is generic (just 'query' and 'path' containers), but the description enriches it by listing every parameter per endpoint, including types, enums, and required markers (e.g., types enum, start/end required). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of specific parameter details.

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 tool as handling Event operations, listing four specific REST endpoints with distinct verbs (Find, Delete, Find latest). This differentiates it from siblings like ivedaai_alert or ivedaai_detection by focusing on commonEvents.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely enumerates endpoints and parameters without stating conditions, exclusions, or preferred use cases. The absence of any comparative language fails to help an agent choose this tool over a sibling.

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