jev_pr_gateReview a unified diff to detect breaking export removals, hardcoded secrets, console leftovers, new TODOs, and dependency changes, returning allow, ask, or block decisions.
Check a unified diff for breaking export removals, hardcoded secrets, console leftovers, new TODOs and dependency manifest changes; returns allow/ask/block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | Yes | Files with their unified diff patch. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well by framing the operation as a non-mutating 'check' and specifying the allow/ask/block result. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or explicitly state that nothing is modified, but the core behavioral contract is stated directly.
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?
One dense, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, the input, the specific checks, and the output format. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.
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 provides the essential call contract: what input to supply, what analysis is performed, and the three possible return values. It does not define the exact mapping from findings to allow/ask/block, but those verdict names are largely self-explanatory for a gatekeeper tool.
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?
The single parameter 'files' is already fully described in the schema with file and patch subproperties, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about what is checked inside the diff, but it does not add field-level semantics beyond the schema.
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 concrete action ('Check'), a specific resource ('a unified diff'), and enumerates the exact categories it scans for: export removals, hardcoded secrets, console leftovers, TODOs, and dependency manifest changes. It also states the three possible verdicts, making the tool's role unmistakable.
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 is clear: pass a unified diff and receive a gate decision. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.