jev_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions confidence and Noul probability, hinting at output semantics, and notes the cost estimate may change, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or how it handles the state input. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely inspects state.

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 short and the main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The second paragraph adds technical jargon that may be useful but is not essential, keeping it relatively lean.

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 tool has an output schema and nested objects, the description should explain how to structure the propositions and state, but it does not. It also lacks details on the output semantics beyond a brief mention of confidence and Noul probability. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 the description does not explain what 'state' or 'propositions' mean, what formats are expected, or how they relate. The only clue is 'over state', which is too vague to guide an agent in constructing valid arguments.

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 clearly states the tool performs 'independent yes/no checks over state', a specific verb and resource, and explicitly excludes text generation and numeric extraction, distinguishing it from sibling tools like jev_ask and jev_classify.

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?

It provides a clear negative scope ('not for text generation or numeric extraction') which helps an agent rule out this tool for those tasks, but does not explicitly mention positive use cases or alternative tools by name, leaving some inference.

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