Rank a repository against a question

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 reveals that enumeration is gitignore-aware, results are cached per (model, question, unit), and returns token/cost usage, which is helpful. However, it omits details like side effects (if any), required permissions, or behavior on empty repos, which are not covered elsewhere.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output. The first sentence states the core function and return structure; the second adds two behavioral traits. There is no fluff or repetition, making it efficient and 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?

The tool has a rich output schema and 6 parameters. The description covers the main function, output fields, and key behaviors (gitignore, caching). It does not explicitly mention the budget_usd stop behavior or edge cases, but the schema documents those parameters and the output schema covers return details, so the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds contextual behavior (gitignore-aware path enumeration, caching keyed by question) that relates to parameters but does not add parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline.

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 verb (rank) and resource (files/functions of a repository) by relevance to a question, and specifies the output format. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like jev_search or jev_rank, but its function is unambiguous and distinct from typical search tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings jev_search and jev_rank. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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