Ask Jev typed questions about one state

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: questions are 'answered independently in one request' and the tool returns probability distributions, which goes beyond what annotations state. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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, with the core action front-loaded and the use case and batching note following naturally. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 read-only prototyping tool with three well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential decision factors: what it runs, what it returns, and when to prefer it over jev_eval. The absence of an output schema is offset by the explicit mention of typed answers and probability distributions.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents model, state, and questions. The description adds the batching behavior of questions but no additional parameter syntax or format details, matching the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 ('Run'), a resource ('a single state'), and an output ('typed answers with their probability distributions'), making the tool's purpose concrete. It also distinguishes itself from jev_eval by framing the use case as prototyping, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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 says to use it 'to prototype question wording before committing it to code or to jev_eval,' which gives a clear when-to-use context and implies when not to use it (final evaluation). It also advises batching several questions per request. It doesn't explicitly mention jev_map, but the guidance is strong.

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