kev_separate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that thresholds should be based on probabilities, not confidence, and explains the state format. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor does it describe the return format. The evaluation nature implies no mutation, but this is not stated. Moderate behavioral 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 two concise paragraphs. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the parameter specifics. It avoids fluff and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it remains efficient and readable.

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's complexity (nested question objects, multiple types, threshold guidance) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the essential usage details. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It explains how to construct questions and the key behavioral rule about thresholds. Minor gaps like error handling or explicit read-only status are acceptable given the output schema and sibling context.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema is generic (state with no type, questions as arbitrary object). The description thoroughly defines state as any JSON value and details the exact structure of questions, including types (choice, score, noul) and criteria formats. This provides essential meaning that the schema completely lacks.

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: evaluate each question independently against the same state, for a packed-vs-separate comparison. It names a specific verb (evaluate), resource (questions against state), and the distinguishing purpose (separate comparison). This differentiates it from siblings like kev_evaluate without ambiguity.

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 context by mentioning 'packed-vs-separate comparison' and explicitly links the questions format to kev_evaluate, implying when this variant is appropriate. It lacks an explicit exclusion ('use this instead of X when...'), but the purpose statement effectively routes an agent to the correct tool.

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