IvedaAI: Utility

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

The description discloses response behavior (status, truncated/timedOut flags) which is useful and goes beyond the sparse annotations (all false). However, it does not clarify whether the diagnostic operation has side effects, what permissions are required, or how 'cut-off' responses may affect data integrity. With no annotations offering safety hints, this is a moderate disclosure.

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: a brief summary, a response note, and the endpoint definition. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more readable with a line break or formatting improvements. Every sentence contributes value, so it earns a 4.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values; it covers status/truncation/timeout but not other potential fields. The exact values for 'method' and 'target' are undefined, and no example is provided. This leaves gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly, though it is adequate for a simple diagnostic utility.

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 defines query as a generic object with additionalProperties, so the specific parameters (method, target, parameters) are only documented in the description. The description adds types and requiredness that the schema omits, providing essential semantic guidance.

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 names a specific operation ('POST /api/utility — Diagnose System') with a clear verb and resource, and distinguishes this utility tool from domain-specific siblings (e.g., camera, alert). However, the opening line 'Utility operations' is vague and could apply to many helpers, so it barely misses a 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or inapplicable cases. The description simply states what the endpoint does without context for selection.

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