jev_code_brief

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: no edits or tests, root must be configured, and results include complete units, hashes, and coverage limits. The readOnlyHint=false is somewhat explained by the safety-oriented wording, and there is no direct contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the main action and add safety/constraint context without filler. The phrasing 'with Jev' is somewhat redundant with the tool name and 'Explicit configured root required' is awkward, but overall the description is appropriately brief.

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?

Given no output schema and five parameters, the description does provide needed context: authorization scope, root requirement, no edits/tests, and return contents. However, it leaves parameter semantics, the meaning of 'coverage limits,' and the side-effect profile of the Jev ranking step under-specified.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the meaning of query, glob, max_candidates, or root beyond path-related hints. The reference to 'coverage limits' is ambiguous and not clearly mapped to the schema parameters.

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 action and resource: 'Find source candidates within an explicitly authorized non-sensitive subdirectory.' It also adds 'No edits or tests,' which helps separate it from mutation-oriented siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 conveys clear prerequisites and constraints: only authorized subdirectories, explicit configured root, no edits/tests. That implies when the tool is appropriate, but it never points to a sibling tool or states when-not-to-use, leaving routing to inference.

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