iva_screenshare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists mutating operations such as start, stop, request, and respond, and it notes the API version, but it does not explain side effects, permission requirements, the remote-control handshake flow, or when destructive confirmation is needed.

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 plus a version note, with no filler or repetition. Every phrase contributes to identifying the tool's operation set, and the key capabilities are front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no behavioral annotations, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It omits the remote-control flow, the required contents of nested data objects, and expected outcomes, although the detailed action enum partially compensates.

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%, including detailed per-operation text in the action enum, so the schema already explains most parameters. The prose description adds no parameter-level meaning, and nested objects like batchData, startData, and controlData remain only generically described, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete resource (IVA screenshare) and enumerates its operations: start/stop web or VNC screen sharing, and request/respond/stop remote control, plus batch respond. This is specific and not a tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like iva_conference_media.

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 no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to the many sibling IVA tools. The only usage hints are implicit in the operation names and the action enum inside the schema, so an agent is left to infer when this tool should be selected.

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