IvedaAI: Module

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

Annotations already disclose the destructive nature (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the description need not restate that. The description does add useful context about the response JSON format (status, truncated, timedOut) and the file upload requirements for POST. It does not go deeper into side effects or permission requirements, but the annotation coverage covers the primary safety concern.

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 a compact, well-organized list of endpoint definitions prefaced by a brief note on the response format. Every sentence carries useful information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 five operations, detailed parameter lists, and no output schema, the description provides adequate endpoint-level detail. However, it lacks higher-level context about what modules are, typical use cases, or what 'reload' specifically does, which would round out the completeness for an agent navigating the API.

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 provides only generic parameter containers (body, file, path, query), but the description spells out concrete parameters for each endpoint, such as 'moduleId', 'offset', 'pageSize', and 'name'. This adds real semantic value beyond the schema, enabling the agent to construct correct requests without guessing.

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 IvedaAI module operations, listing five distinct REST endpoints (uninstall, find, install, reload, get). Each endpoint is described with a specific verb and resource, and it is clearly distinguished from sibling tools that target other resource types like cameras or alerts.

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 enumerates the exact operations with their HTTP methods and one-line purposes, making it straightforward to select the appropriate operation for a module management task. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to alternative tools, though the resource-specific nature of sibling tools makes the intended usage fairly clear.

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