IvedaAI: False-report

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

Annotations provide limited safety info (not read-only, not destructive), and the description adds a useful note about response JSON fields (status, truncated, timedOut) indicating potential cut-off responses. However, it does not disclose side effects of POST or any prerequisites beyond the body parameters. This is acceptable given the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear header, response note, and bullet-style listing of endpoints. Each line provides necessary operational details without excess verbosity.

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?

The description covers both operations, mentions response format flags, and specifies body fields. It lacks details like authentication, error responses, or pagination, but given there is no output schema and the operations are simple, it is reasonably complete for an API tool.

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 schema only provides generic parameter containers (body, file, path, query, operation). The description enriches this by specifying the exact operation enum values and the body structure for POST: { description?: string, sceneId?: integer }. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which was the main gap.

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 the resource (false-report) and the specific actions: GET for connection check and POST for sending a false detection report. It distinguishes between the two operations and from sibling tools by naming the exact API endpoints and their purposes.

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 implies the tool is for false-report operations and lists the GET/POST endpoints, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The usage context is clear from the resource name, but no direct comparison with other tools is given.

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