jev_coding_loop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds the clarification that it does not run anything, which aligns with the read-only annotation but does not go beyond it. It also mentions reliance on trusted execution facts, which adds context, but no other behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, side effects) are disclosed. The description does not contradict 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a clarifying statement about not executing anything. This is an efficient and well-structured description.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and a set of sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the expected output format (e.g., what a 'judge' decision looks like), nor does it provide guidance on how parameters interact or when to use this tool in a workflow. The description relies heavily on schema descriptions and annotations, but the schema is incomplete and the description adds little 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?

The description does not mention any of the parameters or their meanings. Schema coverage is 57%, meaning several parameters (model, extras, review_at, auto_accept) lack descriptions in the schema, and the tool description does not compensate for this gap. The required parameters task and observation are described in the schema, but the description adds no additional semantic value to any parameter.

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 the tool's purpose: to judge whether to proceed, retry, or stop based on trusted execution facts. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly noting it does not run anything, which helps differentiate from execution-focused siblings. However, the phrase 'judge next step' is somewhat generic and could be more explicit about the decision output.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist (e.g., jev_step, jev_verify), but the description does not reference them or provide any routing cues, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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