IvedaAI: Onvif

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

Despite annotations lacking detail, the description adds useful behavioral context about response JSON: 'status', 'truncated', 'timedOut' flags, and truncation behavior. It also specifies the required body field for the POST operation, going beyond the schema. No contradiction 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 reasonably concise, starting with a general purpose line, then a useful response note, and a structured list of endpoints. The first line is slightly redundant with the title, but the rest is compact and informative.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining key response fields and truncation behavior. It lists both operations and gives body requirements. It lacks details on authentication or side effects, but for a two-endpoint tool it covers the essential invocation context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial meaning for the POST body, indicating 'CameraRequest' requires 'cameraType' and directing to 'ivedaai_get_schema' for full fields. This supplements the generic schema descriptions and helps the agent construct valid requests.

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 explicitly names the resource ('Onvif') and provides two specific operations with verbs: 'Discover onvif cameras' and 'List onvif camera rtsp'. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools by resource and action, meeting the 'specific verb+resource' criterion.

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 gives clear context for each operation (GET vs POST) and notes the required body field for the POST operation. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, though the resource-specific name and sibling list make the intended use fairly obvious.

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