iva_interlocutors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists operations but does not explain side effects, whether presence subscriptions persist, how to unsubscribe, permission requirements, or any destructive or stateful behavior associated with the actions.

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 operation list and includes the API version at the end. There is no filler or repetition, though the action list is slightly redundant with the schema's enum.

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 action enum in the schema provides helpful per-operation details, making the tool somewhat self-explanatory. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and a vague findCriteria object, the description leaves return values, subscription lifecycle, and nested criteria structure under-specified.

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%, with the action enum providing detailed per-value explanations and parameter descriptions. The prose description restates the action names but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the resource (IVA interlocutors) and enumerates concrete operations: find by contact/ldap/profile/profileIds, find interlocutors, get types, and subscribe to presence. This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like iva_contacts or iva_profile.

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 summarizes available actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as iva_contacts, iva_profile, or iva_chat. It also omits prerequisites and any exclusion criteria, leaving usage context entirely to inference.

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