jev_gate

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds one useful behavioral caveat: 'Auto is not runtime acceptance,' which suggests that auto_accept should not be treated as confirmation of runtime behavior. However, it does not explain what happens during review, how acceptance decisions are made, or what the tool does with review_at/auto_accept values.

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 very concise, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and a short caveat in the second. There is no wasted text. However, the second sentence is cryptic enough that it may require the agent to infer what 'Auto' refers to, so it is not perfectly clear.

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 8 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema, yet the description offers no information about return values, success criteria, or how evidence and claims are compared. It also leaves the purpose of review_at and auto_accept mostly unexplained. For a complex review/gating tool, this description is too minimal to be fully actionable.

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 63%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description references 'diff' and 'claims' but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema. The line 'Auto is not runtime acceptance' hints at the meaning of auto_accept, which lacks a schema description, but this is too indirect and underdeveloped to raise the score.

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 identifies a specific action: review a diff and verify completion claims together. It names the core resource (diff) and the verification target (completion claims). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like jev_review or jev_verify, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 almost no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or conditions under which another sibling tool should be preferred. The warning 'Auto is not runtime acceptance' is more of a behavioral caveat than actionable usage guidance.

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