Run a Jev AI decision

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API key requirement and, crucially, the sentinel behavior 'a noul of exactly 0.5 means the model declined to answer,' plus the calibrated-probability output. This is highly useful beyond what the schema shows.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the auth requirement, and the pivotal output-semantics warning. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is zero fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return kinds and the 0.5 sentinel, which is sufficient for an agent to consume the result. It does not describe the exact response JSON shape or the model parameter's pinning behavior, but the 100%-covered input schema compensates for those aspects.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats 'state (text or JSON)' and 'typed questions' but does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already defines. The calibration and 0.5 mention concern output behavior, not parameter meaning.

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 verb and resource: 'Send a state ... and up to 16 typed questions to Jev AI on jevx.org, and get back the choice, score or yes/no for each.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like validate_questions (pre-check) and open_in_jevx (UI launch), making the tool's role unmistakable.

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?

It gives an auth prerequisite ('Needs JEVX_API_KEY') and advice on consuming results ('Branch your own code on the returned probabilities'), but it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of validate_questions or open_in_jevx. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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