360° diagnostic audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and 'Scan a project directory' reasonably implies a read-only analysis rather than a mutation or destructive action. It also discloses the output shape (findings, evidence, ranked fix actions), but it does not state whether any side effects, network calls, or permission requirements exist.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value: the action, the target, the five scored dimensions, and the expected deliverables are all included economically.

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 complex audit tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and output categories, but leaves gaps around when to use it versus sibling tools, practical limitations, and safety/impact expectations. It is sufficient for a basic invocation but not fully self-contained.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces that 'root' is a project directory, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints, default behavior of 'preset', or relationships between 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 uses a specific verb ('Scan'), names the target resource ('a project directory'), and precisely defines the domain ('score five dimensions') and the deliverable ('findings, evidence and ranked fix actions'). This clearly sets jev_audit apart from sibling tools like jev_research or jev_redteam, which have different scope and outputs.

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 intended use case is implied: run a comprehensive diagnostic audit of a project directory. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance, no comparisons to sibling tools like jev_evaluate or jev_redteam, and no exclusions, so an agent must infer when this is the right choice relative to the many alternatives.

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