IvedaAI: ObjectType

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with GET-only operations. It adds context about response JSON containing 'status', 'truncated', and 'timedOut' flags, alerting the agent to potentially truncated responses. This goes beyond 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 compact and front-loaded with a general response note, then lists each endpoint with its parameters. No unnecessary words; every line provides operational detail.

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?

Without an output schema, the description gives essential response context (status, truncated flags). It covers all three operations and their parameters. However, it does not fully detail response shapes or when to use each operation, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting between them. Still, for a read-only list tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 property descriptions (e.g., 'Query string parameters for this operation'), so the description carries the burden of explaining actual parameters. The description lists query parameters (ainvrId, ainvrIds) and path parameter category with enum, providing meaningful semantics 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 states this tool provides ObjectType operations and enumerates three specific GET endpoints with brief purposes (list all with synonyms, list object types, list by category). It uses specific verbs and resource names, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. The description implies usage through operation names (e.g., 'List object types'), but does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or which operation to choose in different scenarios. This is adequate but not proactive.

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