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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses many behaviors: background operation, default/max steps, timeout, Chrome persistence, safe keys, status handling, and the limitation 'Jev does not type.' It also warns that needs_verification is not a pass. This is extensive, though it omits details like response format and side effects beyond staying open.

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 dense but efficient, with each sentence adding a distinct piece of information. It is front-loaded with purpose, then proceeds to limits, url, persistence, safe keys, and status handling. No redundancy; it reads as a tight operational spec.

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?

Given the complexity (9 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers core invocation details and re-call logic. It fails to explain several parameters and does not describe the response structure beyond statuses. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for advanced configuration.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains url ('Pass url to open a page'), max_steps (default 12, max 30), session_id and goal (used in re-call instructions). However, it does not explain policy, controls, tab_id, min_confidence, or allowed_origins, which are nested or non-obvious. Compensation is partial, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run one Jev chunk in background Google Chrome.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like jev_claim_tab (tab claiming) and jev_wait (waiting). The phrase 'Pass url to open a page' further clarifies an action. However, it assumes knowledge of what a 'Jev chunk' is, which is not defined, slightly reducing clarity.

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 description provides operational guidance on when to re-call the tool based on statuses (step_limit, budget, needs_verification) and conditions (task still valid). It also notes that Chrome stays open and history is kept, which helps context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Claim' implies taking ownership or locking a tab, but the description does not say whether the claim is exclusive, reversible, idempotent, or what happens if the tab_id does not exist. No side effects, failure modes, or lifecycle details are provided.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It loses a point because 'bounded Jev operation' is unexplained jargon that could have been replaced with more concrete behavior, but the structure itself is appropriately tight.

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 tool is simple but has no annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter. The description does not explain what 'claim' actually does, what the operation returns, what prerequisites exist, or how this tool relates to siblings. It is not enough for an agent to invoke it confidently in a real workflow.

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 schema has one required string parameter, tab_id, with 0% description coverage. The description adds the meaning that the tab must already exist ('one existing browser tab'), but it does not explicitly say that tab_id identifies that tab, where to obtain it, or any format expectations. This is minimal but non-trivial compensation for the schema 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?

The description names a specific action and resource: 'Claim one existing browser tab...' and gives a purpose ('for bounded Jev operation'). It is distinguishable from siblings like jev_user_tabs and jev_browser_run, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them. The phrase 'bounded Jev operation' is vague but does not hide the core action.

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 description implies the tool is used when a bounded Jev operation requires an existing browser tab, but it does not state when to prefer this over siblings or provide exclusions. No alternatives are named, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool may click a field first, that the typed text is not returned, and that execution should resume with jev_browser_run. It does not describe error cases or behavior when field is omitted, but the important side effects and workflow constraints 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?

Four short sentences front-load the main action and then efficiently add the prerequisite, the output caveat, and the follow-up step. Every sentence adds necessary operational information with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough operational context to make the call and continue the workflow. The main missing detail is explicit guidance on the optional field parameter and what counts as a valid value, but the overall flow is well covered.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does name all three parameters: text is host-supplied, field is the field to click first, and session_id is reused with jev_browser_run. However, it does not clarify that field is optional (though the schema marks it optional) nor describe acceptable formats or selector syntax, leaving some ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific, actionable purpose: 'Type text supplied by the host into the open Chrome session.' It clearly identifies the action, the target, and the source of the text. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, though it references jev_browser_run as a follow-up, which helps locate its role.

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 description communicates when to use the tool: when the host has supplied text for Jev to type, and it warns 'Jev never chooses this text.' It also provides a prerequisite ('Pass field to click that text field first') and a required continuation ('resume with jev_browser_run and the same session_id'). It does not spell out when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the intended workflow is clear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation and the phrase 'available to claim' adds context about tab state, but it does not describe the output format, error behavior, or whether IDs are returned for later use with jev_claim_tab.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, target, and relevant scope ('available to claim') compactly and clearly.

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?

For a zero-parameter, simple listing tool, the description provides adequate context by naming the resource and the claim-related purpose. It is slightly incomplete because there is no output schema and the description does not specify what fields or identifiers the returned tabs include, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond what the schema shows. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter clarification is needed at all.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('existing browser tabs available to claim'). The phrase 'available to claim' distinguishes this listing tool from the sibling jev_claim_tab and other browser tools, so an agent can clearly identify its purpose.

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 description implies usage: it lists tabs that can later be claimed, which suggests using it before jev_claim_tab. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving the usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core wait behavior, that no Jev decision is started, and the session_id requirement. However, it omits critical behavior for a polling tool: what happens on timeout (error vs. false return) and what the tool returns on success. This is a meaningful gap given the zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core behavior is front-loaded. The negative qualifier and prerequisite are each given their own clause, making the description easy to parse. Slightly dense sentence structure in the first line, but economical overall.

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?

For a wait/polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the essentials are missing: the agent is never told what the tool returns, how it signals a timeout, or what the polling semantics are. These are exactly the things a caller needs to invoke it correctly, and the description is silent on them.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does define the two core filtering parameters (`includes` and `excludes`) inline. But it does not explain the timing parameters `poll_ms` and `timeout_ms`, nor clarify the role of `session_id` beyond 'requires it'. For a five-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this is only partial compensation.

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 states a specific verb ('Wait until') plus a concrete resource ('open Chrome session accessibility text') and a precise condition (includes every string in `includes`, none in `excludes`). The clause 'Does not start a Jev decision' helps separate it from decision-triggering siblings like jev_browser_run. It is clear but stops short of fully enumerating what distinguishes it from every sibling.

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 description implies when to use it (when you need to await a content condition on an open Chrome session) and gives a negative signal ('Does not start a Jev decision') plus a prerequisite ('Requires session_id'). However, it never names an alternative tool or states a when-not-to-use condition, leaving sibling selection to the agent's inference.

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