iva_file_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists operation names and does not mention side effects, prerequisites, permissions, destructiveness, idempotency, or what happens during scanning subscriptions. The existence of a 'confirm' parameter hints at destructive actions, but the description does not address this.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and enumerates its operations without extraneous detail. The version reference is minor but not distracting.

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?

This is a multi-action tool with six parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the create-then-upload flow, required parameters per action, meaning of the nested objects, or expected return values. The action enum helps but still leaves important invocation context uncovered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters and the action enum contains detailed per-action descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, and opaque nested objects like scanData and resourcesInfo remain unexplained, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score.

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 identifies the tool as handling IVA file resources and enumerates its operations: create, download/upload, get info, and subscribe to scanning status. This is specific enough to distinguish it from the many sibling tools focused on chat, conferences, documents, and profiles, though it does not explicitly contrast an alternative.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as iva_documents or other resource-oriented siblings. It lists capabilities but provides no conditional context, exclusions, or pointers to alternatives.

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