Select and validate a confidence-gated action from candidates, then return an execution payload for browser agent decisions.
Choose, validate, and apply a confidence gate; return an execution payload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | ||
| model | No | jev-latest | |
| history | No | ||
| provider | No | live | |
| timeout_s | No | ||
| candidates | Yes | ||
| observation | Yes | ||
| min_confidence | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says the tool 'applies a confidence gate' and returns a payload, but it does not explain side effects, whether anything is mutated or executed, preconditions, or failure behavior. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it.
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 sentence is compact and has no filler, using a clear semicolon to separate process from output. It is too terse, however, to be genuinely helpful for a tool with 8 parameters, so brevity trades away necessary substance.
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 8 parameters, required inputs, no annotations, and a 0% schema description coverage, this definition is far from complete. It does not explain what goal, observation, or candidates mean, how the confidence gate behaves, or what the execution payload represents, leaving the agent without enough context to call the tool correctly.
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%, and the description names none of the 8 parameters such as goal, observation, candidates, min_confidence, or timeout_s. With the schema providing only titles and types, the description was expected to compensate and does not.
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 has a real verb structure ('Choose, validate, and apply a confidence gate') and an output ('return an execution payload'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'confidence gate' and 'execution payload' are unexplained jargon, and the actions overlap with sibling tools like jev_choose and jev_validate without distinguishing this tool from them.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use jev_step versus alternatives such as jev_choose, jev_validate, or jev_system_one. There are no conditions, exclusions, or contextual hints, so the agent must infer the tool's place in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.