Jev candidate ranker

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: no embeddings, a top-hit relevance check, a 250-candidate cap with chunking/reranking, and a stateless input-only design. The only blemish is the unclear 'Noul' wording, which hampers full comprehension.

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 mostly efficient: every sentence contributes either an input requirement, an algorithmic trait, or a constraint. It is front-loaded with the main action. The awkward 'One Choice over candidate ids plus a Noul' phrase and unmarked technical jargon reduce readability slightly.

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 stateless ranker, the description covers the main operational concerns: candidate format, maximum count, chunking behavior, lack of repo indexing, and the query-scoring approach. It lacks an explicit description of the return value shape, and no output schema exists to fill that gap, but an agent can likely call the tool correctly with what is given.

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 high (75%), so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description does add useful context for 'query' ('plain-language') and 'candidates' (pass them in, max 250, chunked), but the 'model' parameter remains undocumented and no explanation of output fields is provided.

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 verb and resource: 'Rank files, symbols, errors, or skills against a plain-language query.' It further distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting 'No embeddings' and 'Pass candidates in; this server does not index the repo.' The core purpose is unmistakable even before looking at the schema.

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 clearly implies when to use it: rank a supplied list of candidates against a query, and do not expect repo indexing. However, it never names alternative sibling tools or explicitly says when another tool would be better, leaving routing largely to inference.

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