jev_rank_assets

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior: local by default, the optional provider call, the failure mode for missing required metadata, and the explicit guarantee that no asset loads, edits, or visual judgments occur. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, and the following sentences each add essential context (mode, opt-in, failure mode, exclusions, alternative). No filler or redundancy.

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 what the tool does, how it behaves locally vs via provider, what causes failure, what it does not do, and where to go for authoritative measurements. With an output schema present and annotations already covering safety, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 adds meaning for goal, candidates, and use_jev by describing supplier-owned metadata and the provider opt-in. However, it does not clarify filters or limit beyond the schema's self-descriptive names and defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Filter and rank supplied asset metadata; optional Jev choice over the shortlist.' It clearly scopes the tool to metadata filtering/ranking and explicitly points to unreal_asset_details for a different task, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 explains the local default, when to opt into the Jev provider with use_jev=true, what happens with missing metadata, and explicitly names unreal_asset_details as the alternative for authoritative mesh measurements. This gives an agent clear routing guidance.

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