jev_catalog_rerank

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: 'Sends the goal and shortlisted descriptions to the cloud; no editor state or tools run.' This clarifies the side-effect profile and the remote invocation, which is useful beyond 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a behavioral note and a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place; there is no wasted wording.

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?

With an output schema present, return format is not needed. The description covers the core behavior and side-effect profile, but it does not differentiate from other decision-oriented siblings (je_decide, je_route, je_triage) beyond the search contrast, and it leaves the 'defer' behavior ambiguous. For a tool that is one of many decision helpers, this is only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'goal' and 'shortlisted descriptions' indirectly, which maps to the goal and tool_ids parameters, but it does not explain their format, purpose, or constraints. The version parameter is not mentioned at all. This is insufficient for a tool with three 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 clearly states the action: ask Jev to recommend one tool from an explicit catalog shortlist, or defer. This is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from the sibling jev_catalog_search by explicitly noting when to prefer deterministic search instead.

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?

It gives an explicit condition for choosing an alternative ('Prefer deterministic catalog search when it already identifies the appropriate tool'), which tells the agent when not to use this tool. However, it does not contrast with other decision tools like jev_decide, jev_route, or jev_triage, so the guidance is only partial.

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