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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond them – no paid API calls are incurred and no credentials are returned. It still doesn't say what the readiness check actually inspects or how failure is reported.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the cost and credential caveats are appended tightly to the core purpose rather than padding it.

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 should describe what a readiness result looks like, but it only states what is *not* returned (credentials). For a simple zero-param diagnostic this is close to adequate, but the agent cannot anticipate the response shape.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies nothing is configurable and no argument is needed.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (local Gemini/Jev integration readiness), which is clearly distinct from the sibling action tools delegate_task and jev_evaluate. It doesn't explicitly name the siblings, but 'readiness' frames it as a diagnostic rather than a work-performing tool.

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?

'without making paid requests' gives clear context that this is a zero-cost preflight check, implying it should be used before invoking a paid path like jev_evaluate. No explicit when-not or alternative is named, but the operational context is legible.

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

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

Annotations only give the generic flags (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds real behavior the annotations cannot convey: it cannot modify source files, cannot browse or execute commands, consumes Google quota and TypeSafe API credits, and returns a preview plus full result file plus verdict.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then inputs, then returns, then limits. Every sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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 usefully names the return shape (preview, result file, verdict) and the capability boundaries. It does not flag that non-idempotent, open-world execution means re-invocation re-spends credits and re-runs the task, a small remaining gap.

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 0% for 4 params, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that 'files' are selected absolute paths and that 'review_checks' are acceptance criteria, but says nothing about 'task' or 'context' — partial compensation only.

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 workflow: delegate one routine task to Gemini Flash, then batch-check the result with Jev. This is clearly distinct from bridge_status (status) and jev_evaluate (standalone review), though it never names the siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Gives usable selection criteria — 'one self-contained routine task', supply 'explicit acceptance criteria' — and rules out a class of use via the stated limits. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling (jev_evaluate) for direct review without delegation.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world traits. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: confidence is advisory rather than proof/authorization, identical evaluations are cached in-process, and the call consumes TypeSafe API credits. These are real operational disclosures, though permissions and any rate limits are not detailed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and safely within size limits. The advisory-confidence sentence is slightly tangential but carries useful caveat value.

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 deep nested question schema and no output schema, the description covers inputs reasonably but does not explain the return shape or how the three question types differ. An agent can invoke it but must reverse-engineer the typed-question contract from the schema alone.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies context as text/JSON, files as optional, and adds a 1-12 question-count constraint not enforced in the schema. However, it does not explain the three question types (choice/noul/score) or the role of instructions vs criteria, leaving the deeply nested oneOf structure largely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: asking Jev 1-12 narrow typed questions for routing, ranking, or evidence checks on Codex/Gemini results. This is clearly distinct from a status check or task delegation. It does not explicitly name bridge_status or delegate_task to differentiate itself, keeping it just below a 5.

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 contexts (routing, ranking, evidence checks) and says to supply context plus optional files, but never states when to prefer this over delegate_task or bridge_status, nor any exclusion conditions. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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