Gatekeeper decision (execute / speculative / system2)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently describes the three execution branches, the $0 direct-execution path, speculative sub-decisions, and System 2 escalation. It does not disclose output format or side effects, but the persist parameter and schema cover part of that.

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?

A single dense sentence with a front-loaded action and a colon-structured breakdown of the three confidence branches. Every clause contributes behavioral information, and there is no filler.

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 the core routing behavior but does not explain what value the tool returns, what 'speculative sub-decisions' look like, or how an agent should consume the result. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these gaps reduce completeness even though the main purpose is clear.

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 all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the general notion of confidence routing, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Route one decision') and resource (the BELKİ gatekeeper), and clearly enumerates the three confidence-based outcomes. It is self-explanatory, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as jev_evaluate or jev_verify, so differentiation is implicit rather than direct.

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 three confidence bands describe the tool's internal routing rather than when an agent should choose this tool over alternatives. Usage is implied ('Route one decision through...') but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or named alternative tools.

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