Check a Jev AI question shape

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool runs the same checks as the API, does not spend credits, and does not need an API key. However, it does not describe the tool's own return format, whether it is purely read-only, or what an error response looks like, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the most important facts (same checks, no credits/key, use first) are front-loaded. The second sentence justifies the recommended usage, making every word earn 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?

For a tool with a nested input schema and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains why it exists, when to use it, and what it avoids. It does not detail the return value, but output schemas are absent and the rubric says descriptions needn't explain return values in that case. The main gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation, which is minor given the tool's clear standalone purpose.

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 input schema already documents the single 'questions' parameter and its nested structure in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying the tool validates question shape, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Run') and resource ('the same shape checks the Jev API enforces'), and clearly identifies the tool's role as a pre-flight validation step. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings 'decide' and 'open_in_jevx', but the purpose is unambiguous and the no-credits/no-key distinction sets it apart.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this first when writing questions by hand' and explains the consequence of not doing so (deeply nested validation error). It does not mention when to choose siblings instead, but the stated usage context is clear and sufficient for the main workflow.

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