jev_check_hypothesis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral disclosure beyond the schema: inputs are sent to TypeSafe, which signals external data egress the agent could not otherwise know. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only analysis, what side effects occur, or any latency/rate limits.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. The TypeSafe clause is a semantically distinct fact tacked on with a semicolon rather than its own line, but nothing is wasted or repetitive.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the tool takes five parameters with 0% schema coverage, has no annotations, and no usage or distinction guidance. Too much of the calling contract is left undocumented for a tool of this shape.

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 0% and there are five parameters. The description only gestures at three of them (hypothesis, symptom, code) with no format, syntax or expectation detail, and it ignores 'context' and 'language' entirely. With the schema providing no field documentation, the description fails to 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: estimating whether a debugging hypothesis fits a symptom plus code. That is far more precise than a generic 'review' or 'evaluate' verb. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like jev_triage_bug_report or jev_evaluate, so an agent must infer which of these overlapping analysis tools applies.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the five sibling tools. The phrase 'supplied symptom and code' hints at the input situation but gives no routing guidance for an agent choosing between this and jev_triage_bug_report.

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