IvedaAI: Resource

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

Despite annotations being all false, the description adds valuable behavioral context by documenting the response JSON shape ('status' as HTTP status code; 'truncated'/'timedOut' flags for cut-off responses). It also notes required body fields, going beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions found.

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?

Description is compact and well-organized, using line breaks and bullet-like formatting. Every line provides necessary operational detail with no redundant text. The response note is kept to one sentence.

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?

All four operations are enumerated with their parameters, and the response format note covers common edge cases. It lacks per-operation response examples, and the ainvrIds parameter semantics is thin, but the reference to ivedaai_get_schema helps fill gaps. For a multi-endpoint tool, this 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 description coverage is 100%, but the generic schema only describes container properties (body, query, path). The description enriches this by specifying operation-specific params: direction enum (asc|desc), required cameraId/recommendEngines, ainvrIds as integer, and pointing to ivedaai_get_schema for full field details.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as 'Resource operations' and lists four distinct API endpoints with explicit actions (List resources, Get resource cost, Get estimation, Get resource information). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling IvedaAI domain tools.

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?

Usage context is implied by listing each endpoint and its purpose, but there are no explicit instructions on when to choose this tool over other IvedaAI tools (e.g., ivedaai_plugin for costs) or exclusions. This is sufficient but not exemplary.

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