jev_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add value by stating the tool is purely analytical (does not run tests, does not read diffs) and has a runtime dependency. It still omits whether the operation mutates anything, what happens on incomplete input, and what the review output looks like.

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 packs the action, the inputs, the output goal, and the key limitations without redundancy. The parenthetical is dense but does not wander.

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 3-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers inputs and scope limits but leaves the response shape (what an 'evidence gap' report contains) and failure/edge behavior unexplained. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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% and each of the three parameters is documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the same three inputs without adding format, size, or content expectations beyond what is already structured.

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?

Names a specific verb (review) and the exact inputs it consumes (task specification, change summary, test logs), plus the goal (detect evidence gaps). It is clear what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling jev_* tools, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 parenthetical gives real boundary conditions — it does not run tests or read git diffs, and it requires a JevBridge runtime — which implies when the caller must supply data themselves. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this over jev_guard, jev_route, jev_rerank, or jev_arbitrate, leaving routing to the agent.

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