Chief-of-staff role dispatcher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool reads shared memory and task intent, which is useful, but it does not say whether this operation mutates shared memory, has side effects, requires prior state, or only constructs a payload. The nature of the dispatch side effects remains unclear.

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 that front-loads the core behavior first and the output second. It packs the role list and handoff payload without irrelevant detail or repetition, earning every word.

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 conveys the high-level operation and output concept, but with no output schema it does not specify what 'ready handoff payload' actually looks like structurally. It also does not state what happens if no role is appropriate or how shared memory content influences the pick. These are notable gaps given the tool's orchestration role.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context by mentioning task intent and shared memory, which loosely maps to the 'task' and 'context' parameters, but it does not materially deepen the meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 action ('Read shared memory + task intent and pick the next agent role') and names the exact output ('ready handoff payload'). It also lists the candidate roles, making the tool's function unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools like jev_evaluate or jev_plan, which route to judgment or planning rather than role dispatch.

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 implies the tool is used when a task needs to be routed to the next agent role, especially after considering shared memory and task intent. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions such as 'use this only when a role handoff is needed rather than evaluating or planning.'

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