jev_screen

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: it is a filter, not a security boundary; confidence reflects distribution concentration, not correctness; and est_cost_usd may change. However, it does not cover operational behaviors like side effects, latency, or failure modes.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then adds high-value caveats. Each sentence earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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 output schema covers return values, and the description provides important caveats, but it omits the meaning of the 'source' parameter and does not clarify how this tool relates to sibling Jev tools. For a two-parameter tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does little to compensate. 'Text' can be inferred from 'screen untrusted text,' but the optional 'source' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for an important input.

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: 'screen untrusted text,' and adds a meaningful caveat that it is a filter, not a security boundary. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like jev_classify or jev_check, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a clear context for use ('screen untrusted text') but does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The 'not a security boundary' caveat implies a limitation, but no sibling routing or exclusion criteria are provided.

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