IvedaAI: Sound

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:false, and openWorldHint:false; the description adds context about response JSON fields ('status', 'truncated'/'timedOut') which is useful. It does not elaborate on permission requirements, upload side effects, or response formats beyond a brief note, but the addition about cut-off responses is valuable behavioral info.

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 well-structured, using a list format for the four endpoints with parameter details. It front-loads the response note and then enumerates operations efficiently. No fluff; 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?

Given no output schema, the description hints at response structure but does not fully describe return shapes for each operation. It covers all endpoints and parameters, but for a multi-operation tool, additional context about upload handling, pagination, or error cases would improve completeness. Still, the description provides a solid overview for an agent to select the operation.

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 meaningful semantics by detailing each endpoint's query/path parameters, such as types enum and required type for upload. It also explains the 'file' parameter format ({path, filename?, contentType?}) which go beyond the raw schema properties.

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 enumerates the four sound-related API operations with HTTP methods and resources, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other IvedaAI entities. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like ivedaai_alert or ivedaai_event, but the resource name 'sound' is 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?

The description provides operation-specific endpoints and parameters, implying when each operation should be used (list, upload, find by id, find by type). It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, or when not to use it, but the restful structure gives clear context.

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