jev_rank_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is 'cheap' and 'ranks only; never deletes or permanently excludes candidates', establishing that this is a non-destructive, side-effect-free operation. It doesn't mention caching or output specifics, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the usage condition follows immediately, and the non-destructive guarantee is stated succinctly. Every word earns its place.

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 description is sufficient for an agent to know when to call this tool and what it does, including the key safety property. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The main gap is lack of parameter detail, but the tool's simple concept and clear parameter names make this a relatively minor omission.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter understanding, but it does not describe parameters at all. While parameter names like task_goal, current_step, and candidates are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no semantics beyond the schema's literal titles. This is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 ('ranking') and resource ('repository context candidates') and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like jev_assess_risk or jev_judge. It precisely describes the tool's role as a preliminary filter before deeper frontier inspection.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('when discovery produced many plausible files or symbols'). This gives clear context for selection. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use condition is strong and the tool's narrow scope implies the boundary.

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