jev_review_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important trait: code and context leave the environment and are sent to TypeSafe (external data transmission). That is real value. It still omits auth requirements, rate limits, and any notion of whether the call is read-only or mutating.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the data-disclosure caveat appended after the semicolon. Efficient, though it substitutes jargon for useful detail.

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 with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description leaves the agent guessing about focus, language, and expected behavior. For a four-parameter tool it does too little.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It only obliquely touches "code" and "context"; the roles of `focus` and `language` are never explained, leaving two of four parameters completely undocumented anywhere.

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 verb ("Run") and a resource ("code"), so the basic action is recoverable. However, "structured Jev triage" is opaque jargon that doesn't tell an agent what is actually produced or how it differs from siblings like jev_review_diff or jev_triage_bug_report. It is adequate but not self-explanatory.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the five siblings (jev_review_diff, jev_evaluate, jev_check_hypothesis, etc.). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing condition — the agent must infer context from the name alone.

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