jev_arbitrate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: the decision is 'offline' and 'deterministic', which implies a pure, side-effect-free computation with no external calls. However it says nothing about the return shape, whether the result is advisory or binding, or why the schema exposes seven parameters while the text claims five factors.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the four candidate outputs are placed where they are most useful. It is dense with internal jargon (Layer-0 Reflex, System-1/System-2) that is never unpacked, which costs a little clarity but not length.

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 seven-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is only marginally complete. Enumerating the four possible recommendations partially substitutes for an output schema, but the description never explains how the numeric inputs combine or what the caller receives, leaving real ambiguity for an agent that must act on the result.

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 71%, so the schema documents most inputs (risk, confidence, reversible, plus defaults like cost_pressure and expected_value), and the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all. The '5-factor' phrasing also conflicts with the seven declared parameters, which could confuse an agent about which inputs actually drive the decision.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run the offline deterministic 5-factor Meta-Controller') and enumerates the four possible recommendation outputs, which tells an agent what the tool produces. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling jev_route, which plausibly also makes routing decisions, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings jev_route, jev_guard, jev_verify and jev_rerank in the same family, an agent has no stated condition for choosing arbitration over routing or guarding; usage must be inferred purely from the name.

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