Recommends task complexity and model tier for routing coding work, with optional repository context; requires a configured JevBridge runtime.
Provide advisory task complexity and model tier recommendation (requires configured JevBridge runtime).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | Optional repository or file context. | |
| task_description | Yes | Task description or prompt. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that output is advisory (non-binding) and requires a configured runtime, but omits error behavior, return format, and whether the operation is read-only.
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 the prerequisite parenthetically placed. It is tight and wastes no words.
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 simple two-parameter advisory tool with no output schema, the description states the recommendation types but omits return format specifics and sibling-routing context. It is adequate but leaves gaps in what an agent might need for correct invocation.
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 both parameters fully. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the baseline.
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 ('Provide') and resources ('task complexity and model tier recommendation'), making it clear what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like jev_guard or jev_verify beyond the distinct action name.
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 only provides a prerequisite ('requires configured JevBridge runtime') and offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jev_rerank or jev_arbitrate. Usage context must be inferred entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.