RLVR verification (tsc + tests -> reward)

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals two important side effects: persisting a +1/-1 reward to skill memory and auto-tuning gatekeeper thresholds. It does not detail return values or the exact success/failure criteria, but the main behavioral surprises are surfaced.

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, information-dense sentence with the primary action and defaults front-loaded, followed by side effects. It is efficient and contains no filler, though it is slightly dense and could be broken down for easier scanning.

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 main invocation points: working directory, default commands, and reward/threshold side effects. However, it omits how +1 vs -1 is determined, what the tool returns, and what 'auto-tune' concretely changes, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking a stateful tool with no output schema.

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 useful defaults (cwd, commands) but does not need to add much beyond the schema. It receives the baseline 3 because it enriches defaults without substantially explaining parameter behavior further.

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 ('Run verification commands'), the concrete defaults ('npx tsc --noEmit, npm test'), and the distinctive side effects ('record +1/-1 reward into the skill memory', 'auto-tune the gatekeeper thresholds'). This clearly separates it from siblings like jev_evaluate or jev_guardrail, which don't have this verify-and-reward behavior.

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?

Usage context is implied by the title and description: use this when an RLVR-style verification pass is needed and a reward should be recorded. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like jev_pr_gate or jev_evaluate, and no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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