jev_step

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

The description adds that 'Host executes only after its own checks,' which clarifies that this tool is a router and does not perform the execution itself. This is valuable context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which only indicates no side effects. The description explains the host's role in the execution chain, giving the agent a clearer model of the tool's behavior.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Select among host-prepared authorized calls and route a step') and contains no filler or unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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's complexity—8 parameters, nested objects, up to 32 candidates, and trusted host facts—the one-sentence description is severely insufficient. It does not explain the selection criteria, what 'route' means, how the candidates array should be interpreted, or what the tool returns. The agent must rely entirely on the schema and annotations, which is a significant gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 does not add any parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given the coverage, but it also does not help resolve any ambiguity in the remaining undocumented parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most of the weight.

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 action: 'Select among host-prepared authorized calls and route a step.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like jev_review or jev_evaluate, which serve different purposes. The mention of 'host-prepared authorized calls' is unique and immediately clarifies the tool's role.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. An agent would have to infer from the tool name and schema that this is for choosing among prepared calls, but the description itself offers no routing logic or context for when this is the appropriate choice.

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