Jev Gate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds substantive context beyond that: the tool is explicitly 'advisory' and its output is not authorization for irreversible or security-sensitive actions, which is important behavioral framing an agent needs before acting on a pass. It still does not say what a pass or fail returns, what the default 0.8 threshold implies, or what happens on a failed gate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operational trigger followed immediately by the critical caveat. Every clause carries weight and nothing is redundant.

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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the central contract unstated: what 'state' and 'statement' are, what a gate pass/fail actually returns, and how the threshold maps to the outcome. The advisory/not-authorization framing is valuable but does not compensate for those 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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the parameter burden and largely does not. It gestures at 'probability threshold' (mapping loosely to the threshold parameter) but never explains what state, statement, or model should contain, nor the 0-1 range and 0.8 default.

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 specific capability: an atomic yes/no gate that acts as an advisory second opinion, conditioned on a probability threshold. An agent can grasp what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tools (jev_decide, jev_route, jev_risk_score), which all sound like judgment/decision primitives.

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?

It gives a real selection condition ('when a probability threshold would materially change the next action') and a genuine exclusion (passed gates are not authorization for destructive, irreversible, production, security, or data-loss-sensitive actions). It never names an alternative sibling or says when one of those should be preferred instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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