jev_review

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond them: the rubric requires every dimension to independently clear fixed floors (no partial credit), and results are advisory with no authorization effect. It omits other material behavior, such as defaulting to human review when scope or evidence_complete is omitted, and that supplied text is never fetched or read.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the assessment subject comes first and the advisory constraint follows. Every clause carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. Still, for an 8-parameter tool whose verdicts depend on scope defaults and evidence_complete attestation, the description leaves out the review-triggering conditions an agent needs to interpret results correctly, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is only 50% across 8 parameters, but the four documented ones (files, scope, evidence, evidence_complete) are already explained in the schema. The description names the three required inputs by role (patch text, request, tests), which adds modest meaning, but says nothing about the semantics of evidence, tests_passed, or scope's effect on review outcome, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Assess supplied patch text against request and tests', which tells an agent exactly what is evaluated. It is clear enough to separate from siblings like jev_gate by declaring itself advisory only, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

'Advisory only; never grants authorization or executes actions' effectively tells the agent when NOT to rely on it for gating or decisions. However, there is no positive guidance on when to call this versus jev_verify, jev_gate, or jev_screen, so selection among siblings is left to inference.

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