Jev combined review gate

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by confirming it does not apply changes or execute tests, and by disclosing the output shape: reports, coverage, deterministic reason codes, and an overall auto|review|escalate action.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by outputs and boundary conditions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the main purpose, required evidence relationship, and non-mutating behavior. It is mostly complete, but it could benefit from explicit routing guidance versus jev_review/jev_verify and clarification of the threshold parameters.

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 coverage is 63%, with good descriptions for request, diff, claims, evidence, and tests. The description reinforces the claims/evidence relationship but adds nothing about the poorly documented model, review_at, and auto_accept parameters, leaving their meaning and thresholds unclear.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Review a proposed patch and verify completion claims against supplied evidence in one Jev request.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling review/verify tools by being a combined gate, and it states what it returns plus what it does not do.

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 intended use is clear: use this tool when a proposed patch needs review and completion claims need verification against evidence. It also states an exclusion ('Does not apply changes or execute tests'). However, it never explicitly names jev_review/jev_verify as alternatives or states when they should be preferred.

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