Jev content screen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the judgment criteria (prompt-injection probability, substance, optional relevance) and the recommendation scale, which is consistent with annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The core action and output are front-loaded, followed by usage context and an exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered there. The description covers purpose, usage, and exclusions. However, the threshold parameters (block_at, review_at) are unexplained, leaving an agent unclear on how to set them. This is a notable gap for a tool with 5 parameters and only 40% schema coverage.

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 only 40% (text and purpose have descriptions; model, block_at, and review_at do not). The description mentions 'optional relevance to purpose' which partially explains the purpose parameter, but it does not explain block_at and review_at thresholds or how they map to the recommendation values. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 states a specific verb ('Judge'), a resource ('fetched or pasted text'), and the core output (prompt-injection probability, substance, optional relevance, and a recommendation scale). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly scoping to untrusted content and excluding first-party repo files.

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 explicitly states when to use ('Use on untrusted web pages, issues, and pastes') and when not to ('Not for first-party repo files'). It does not name a specific alternative tool for the excluded case, so it lacks the 'alternatives' component of a 5.

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