jev_diagnostics

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it mentions optional cloud excerpt sending (use_jev=true), best-effort redaction with a security warning, input caps (128 KiB, 8192 lines), and that it reads no files. These are significant details that an agent needs to know, especially regarding data privacy and input limits. This goes well beyond the annotations and adds substantial transparency.

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 five sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence adds necessary information: the main action, optional behavior, security caveat, input limits, and authoritative source note. It is concise without being terse, though it could potentially be tightened by merging related clauses. Overall, it is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters, an output schema, and involves optional cloud interaction, the description leaves gaps. It does not explain max_groups and excerpt_chars, which are likely important for controlling output and excerpt size. While the output schema exists, the description still lacks essential parameter semantics and could better clarify the optional cloud feature. For a tool with these complexities, the description is incomplete.

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 explain the parameters. It mentions use_jev and its effect (sends excerpts), and it specifies input caps related to log_text. However, it does not explain max_groups or excerpt_chars at all. With four parameters and only partial coverage of two, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving agents uncertain about the effect of these 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 tool's function: 'Group supplied logs locally by issue with counts, severity and line evidence.' This specifies a concrete action (grouping), a resource (supplied logs), and the output format (by issue with counts, severity, line evidence). The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools, even without explicit differentiation.

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 provides some usage context: it notes that the tool reads no files and that 'build and test results remain authoritative,' implying it should not be used for authoritative conclusions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jev_triage or jev_decide, nor does it name specific alternatives. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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