IvedaAI: Media

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

The description says 'Get stream info', implying a read-only operation, but the annotations set readOnlyHint: false, indicating the operation may not be read-only. This is a direct contradiction between the description and the annotations. Other behavioral details (response flags) are provided, but the contradiction invalidates the transparency 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-structured with a clear endpoint line, query/body breakdown, and response format notes. It is reasonably concise, though it packs a lot of info into a small space, making it slightly dense but organized.

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?

Given the tool has only one operation and no output schema, the description should fully explain behavior and return values. It does explain response flags and lists params, but it omits the actual data structure, defers to another tool for field details, and fails to disclose side effects (contradicting readOnlyHint). This is incomplete for a non-trivial operation.

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 generic input schema only describes wrapper fields (body, query, path) without operation-specific parameters. The description compensates by listing query parameters (cameraId, doEstimate) and body requirements (CameraRequest with required cameraType), and points to ivedaai_get_schema for full field details. This adds significant 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb+resource: 'POST /api/media/stream — Get stream info'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like ivedaai_streaming, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 usage (if you need stream info, use this tool) but gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mentions alternatives like ivedaai_streaming. There are no exclusions or comparison to siblings.

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