jev_assess_risk

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. It honestly states that the tool is cheap, returns only sensitivity likelihoods, and does not certify safety or provide security conclusions. This is valuable caveat-level transparency, though it does not mention caching behavior, side effects, or operational details.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and each clause adds meaning: cost profile, decision purpose, output scope, and a caveat. This is an efficient structure.

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 purpose and output caveat are present, but the description is incomplete for a tool with six parameters and zero schema descriptions. It does not say what inputs the agent must supply or how the returned likelihoods map to the go/no-go decision. Output schema existence helps, but the description alone leaves invocation details to inference.

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 provides no guidance on any of the six parameters. It does not explain the role of task_goal, diff_summary, changed_files, requirements, client, or use_cache. With zero coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not mention parameters 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 clearly states a specific purpose: 'Cheap change-risk triage to decide whether a more expensive frontier review appears warranted.' It also defines the output scope, 'sensitivity likelihoods only,' which separates it from final security assessments. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools, particularly 'jev_triage_failure,' which also uses triage language.

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 usage context: use this cheap triage to decide whether a more expensive frontier review is necessary. It also warns against over-interpretation with 'These are not security conclusions and do not certify safety.' It does not name specific sibling alternatives or when not to use them, but the decision-oriented framing is helpful.

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