jev_triage

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description reinforces and extends this by disclosing that it performs a cloud data transfer, runs as a batched call, and does not modify the editor. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, especially the privacy-related warning about credentials and private data.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose. The standalone 'Cloud data transfer.' sentence is compact but meaningful because it flags an important behavioral consideration. All sentences contribute useful information, though a little more structure could make the input constraints flow more naturally.

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 single-parameter tool with a provided output schema and safety annotations, this description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what input is appropriate, privacy considerations, and the non-authoritative nature of the result. It does not over-explain return values, which is acceptable given the output schema exists.

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 carry the semantic weight for `log_excerpt`. It does this well by specifying that the input is an Unreal log excerpt, should contain only relevant lines, and must have credentials/private data removed. It does not add formatting details, but the schema already provides length constraints.

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: 'Classify a supplied Unreal log excerpt.' It clearly conveys that the tool produces a diagnostic category rather than a build certification. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the classification purpose is distinct enough from the surrounding unreal_* and jev_* tools.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: supply only relevant log lines with credentials and private data removed. It also states a clear boundary: the result suggests a category and does not certify a build or alter the editor. It stops short of naming alternative tools when certification is needed, so it is not a full 5.

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