IvedaAI: SceneObject

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

The description adds a useful note about the response JSON structure, including 'status', 'truncated', and 'timedOut' fields, which goes beyond the minimal annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether POST operations mutate data), authentication requirements, rate limits, or the meaning of the all-false annotations. Thus it provides only partial behavioral transparency.

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 lengthy but well-structured, breaking down each endpoint with its parameters. It front-loads a general response note and uses a consistent format. While there is some repetition of common query parameters across the search endpoints, the organization keeps it readable.

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?

The description covers all four endpoints, their required/optional parameters, and the response format, which is quite comprehensive for a multi-operation tool. However, it lacks a high-level explanation of what a 'SceneObject' is, how to choose between similar search endpoints (e.g., GET vs POST vs image), and any error behavior, leaving some gaps in operational 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?

The input schema only defines generic container fields like 'query', 'body', and 'path', with no details on individual parameters. The description compensates fully by listing every parameter per operation, including types, requiredness, enums, and format examples, adding substantial semantic meaning 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 identifies the tool as 'SceneObject operations' and lists four specific API endpoints with explicit verbs: 'Find scene object by id' and 'Search similar scene object'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by resource and operation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools, nor any exclusions or context for choosing between the provided operations. The description simply lists endpoints without explaining use cases, leaving the agent to infer when this tool should be invoked.

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