IvedaAI: ExternalCamera

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

Annotations provide minimal safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds response JSON status/truncated/timedOut behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects of the POST (e.g., overwriting existing image), authentication requirements, or other behavioral traits, so it doesn't reach a higher score.

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 well-organized into a compact list of endpoints with indentation for parameters, front-loads response status info, and avoids filler. Every line serves a purpose for a multi-operation tool.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives only a partial response format (status/truncated/timedOut) but does not describe the data fields returned by the GET endpoints or the result of the POST. It covers all operations and parameters but lacks sufficient response/error context to be fully self-contained.

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 description goes well beyond the schema by mapping parameters to specific operations, listing exact form fields (applicationId, height, latitude, longitude, timestamp, width) that the generic schema body description does not enumerate. It also clarifies that the file upload should be passed as 'file' and specifies the path parameter mappingId. This adds significant semantics.

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 resource as ExternalCamera operations and enumerates three specific endpoints with verbs: GET analysis meta, POST put image, and GET meta. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ivedaai_camera, which likely handles different camera 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?

Each endpoint is described with its action ('Get camera analysis meta', 'put camera image', 'get camera meta'), giving clear context for when to use each operation. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it misses the top tier.

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