IvedaAI: OAuth

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by explaining the response JSON structure, including 'status', 'truncated', and 'timedOut' flags, which go beyond the annotations. No contradictions with 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 relatively concise, but the formatting is a bit cluttered with line breaks. It front-loads key response information and then presents the operation. It could be cleaner, but every sentence earns its place.

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 single-operation tool with no output schema, the description provides necessary response context and operation details. It doesn't cover error handling or authentication prerequisites, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 only defines generic parameters like 'query' and 'body', but the description enumerates all specific query parameters (code, code_verifier, grant_type, etc.) with types and enums. This adds essential meaning that the schema lacks, providing complete parameter 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 tool as handling OAuth operations with a specific endpoint: POST /api/oauth2/token to get a token. The verb and resource are explicit, and it is distinct from sibling tools which target other resources 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 tool's purpose is self-evident: it is for obtaining OAuth tokens via the listed grant types. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool when OAuth operations are needed.

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