Jev patch review

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

The description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the tool explicitly does not apply the patch, and 'Composite weights live in code' tells agents that scoring weights are internal and not configurable. No contradiction with annotations exists, though the phrase 'noul safe_to_apply' is confusingly typed.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with no redundant filler. The incorrect 'noul' and the cryptic 'Composite weights live in code' sentence slightly reduce clarity, but the overall size and structure are appropriate.

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?

The core use case, timing, and non-application behavior are covered, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, three parameters remain semantically ambiguous, so the description alone is not fully complete for all invocation options.

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 only 50%, and the description only reinforces the core request/diff semantics. It does not clarify model, review_at, or auto_accept, which also lack schema descriptions, so an agent cannot confidently understand their meaning or constraints.

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 ('Score a proposed diff against the request') and names concrete review criteria, so an agent can tell it is a review tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling jev tools, though 'Does not apply the patch' helps separate it from patch-applying tools.

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?

'Call before declaring a fix done' gives clear timing guidance, and 'Does not apply the patch' is a useful exclusion. It does not name alternatives like jev_verify or jev_evaluate, so when to choose this over a sibling is still partly left to inference.

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