Jev patch review

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints: it explicitly states the patch is not applied, that scoring criteria are used, and that composite weights are defined in code. This helps an agent understand side-effect-free, black-box behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action and criteria. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, usage timing, and non-application. The typo 'noul safe_to_apply' and the vague 'composite weights live in code' slightly reduce clarity and polish.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., score, verdict, safe_to_apply value) and does not clarify the optional input parameters. It is adequate for deciding when to call it, but an agent invoking it may still be uncertain about the response shape and how to interpret review_at or auto_accept.

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 50%; request, diff, and tests have descriptions, and the description reinforces their roles ('diff against the request,' 'test-gap'). However, optional parameters like model, review_at, and auto_accept receive no meaningful semantic clarification in either the schema or the description, so the description only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific action ('Score a proposed diff against the request') and enumerates concrete review dimensions (correctness, spec-match, test-gap, blast-radius, safe_to_apply). The title and description clearly distinguish it as a review/safety gate rather than an apply or verify tool.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call before declaring a fix done.' It also excludes a key non-behavior by saying the tool does not apply the patch. It does not name sibling alternatives or formal when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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