IvedaAI: Statistic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds response JSON details (status, truncated/timedOut) which discloses cut-off behavior, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or the structure of the heatmap data itself. This adds some value beyond annotations but is not rich.

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 well-structured: a response note up front, then the endpoint and parameters in a clean list. It's concise with no wasted sentences. The only minor issue is that some parameter semantics (fineness, threshold, forceRefresh) are not explained, but the structure itself is efficient.

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 provides some return information (status, truncated/timedOut) but does not explain what the heatmap data actually contains. Optional parameters like fineness, threshold, and forceRefresh have types but no behavioral explanation. For a non-trivial operation, this leaves significant gaps.

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 is generic (query is just additionalProperties), so the description is the only place where query parameters are documented. It lists all eight parameters with types and required markers (e.g., start*, end*, cameraId?, etc.) and specifies date format for start/end. This is critical and highly valuable 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's purpose: 'GET /api/statistic/heatmap — Generate heatmap'. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('heatmap'), distinguishing it from sibling tools by being the statistic-specific tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it's not a full 5.

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 implies usage by listing the endpoint and parameters, making it clear this is for heatmap generation. However, it does not provide explicit when/when-not guidance or mention alternative tools for similar tasks. The usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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