AutoMode guardrail (pre-execution safety gate)

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 this tool classifies rather than executes the tool call, and it mentions the verdict output and reasons. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what 'Jev Noul danger' and 'Score severity' mean, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core purpose and output. It is efficient, though the packed 'Jev Noul danger and Score severity' phrase introduces unexplained jargon that slightly reduces clarity.

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 two required parameters and no output schema mean the description must explain both inputs and return value. It explains the output as a verdict with reasons, which is adequate at a high level, but it does not clarify how to interpret the 'ask' verdict, what reasons look like, or potential error conditions.

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%, and both parameters ('tool' and 'args') are already described clearly in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics beyond referring to a 'tool call', so it neither improves nor harms parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Classify a tool call before execution' and specifies the exact output ('allow / ask / block verdict with reasons'). It is clearly a pre-execution guardrail, which differentiates it from sibling tools like jev_decide and jev_audit without needing to name them.

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 phrase 'before execution' gives some context on when to invoke it, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as jev_pr_gate or jev_redteam. No exclusions or sibling routing are provided.

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