jev_rank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral constraint 'Does not discover files,' which clarifies its scope. However, it does not describe the return format, scoring details, or any side effects beyond what the annotations provide, so it adds moderate value.

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 short sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the negative constraint follows naturally. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, and the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., an ordered list of IDs, scores, or both). While the name and action imply a ranked list, an agent cannot be certain of the response shape, which could lead to incorrect handling of the output. The schema covers input constraints, but output behavior is left unspecified.

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 schema provides descriptions for 3 of 4 parameters (query, top_k, candidates) with 75% coverage. The description adds the term 'explicit' to clarify that candidates are user-supplied, but it does not add substantive details beyond the schema. The 'model' parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific action ('Rank') on a specific resource ('explicit candidates') with a criterion ('by relevance'). It also draws a clear boundary with 'Does not discover files,' differentiating it from discovery-oriented sibling tools. This is enough to distinguish it from tools like jev_evaluate or jev_review.

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 implies usage when the agent already has a list of candidates and needs them ordered by relevance, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not conditions. The negative statement 'Does not discover files' hints at when not to use it, but it lacks explicit routing to sibling tools such as jev_route_skills or jev_tool_route.

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