Gate a risky action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It accurately conveys that this is a screening/advisory tool that returns a recommendation rather than executing or enforcing anything. It doesn't cover failure modes or side effects, but for a read-only risk-assessment tool, the stated behavior is largely sufficient.

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?

One dense single sentence contains the verb, object, timing, and the full output contract. No filler, no redundant restating of the title. The description is front-loaded with the operative word 'Screen' and is easy to scan.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned: a risk score, a production/data touch flag, and a allow/confirm/block recommendation. Missing details like the score scale or the exact meaning of 'confirm' are minor given the tool's simplicity and the agent's ability to infer from context.

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 100%, so the structured fields already document both 'action' and 'context' well. The description only restates the example from the schema ('a shell command or file edit') and adds no new meaning for either parameter. Hence the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Screen') and resource ('an action'), then specifies the exact output: a risk score, a production/data flag, and a recommendation of allow/confirm/block. That three-way recommendation set clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like jev_score or jev_decide, even though no sibling is named.

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?

It gives an explicit call condition: 'before an agent runs it.' That tells the agent exactly when this tool is appropriate. It does not state when to prefer a sibling instead, but the timing plus the advisory nature is a clear enough usage signal for this tool's simplicity.

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