Jev fused step router

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

It discloses important behavioral boundaries beyond the annotations: 'Never generates arguments, executes calls, or invokes a model' and enumerates exact handoff outcomes. This adds real value, though the phrase 'Same dispatch floors' is vague and not explained.

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 key differentiator and a compact summary of behavior. It is tight and efficient, but 'Same dispatch floors' is compressed jargon that may confuse agents, preventing a perfect score.

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 description covers purpose, sibling relationship, handoff behavior, and the critical non-execution guarantee. With an output schema and safety annotations present, this is mostly sufficient, but the undefined 'dispatch floors' and lack of guidance on choosing among handoff options leave minor 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?

The description adds little direct parameter semantics; it only alludes to host-prepared calls, which maps loosely to the candidates field. With 63% schema description coverage, the schema carries most of the meaning, so the description neither compensates nor meaningfully enriches the parameters.

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 and resource: it routes the coding step and selects among up to 32 host-prepared calls in a single Jev request. It explicitly names the siblings it replaces — jev_coding_loop and jev_tool_route — making differentiation immediate.

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 clearly frames the tool as a fused replacement for 'jev_coding_loop then jev_tool_route', which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It does not, however, discuss exclusions or compare against other siblings like jev_gate or jev_review, leaving some selection context implicit.

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