jevqueue_decide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does signal that this is a consultative/read-style call whose output governs a subsequent decision. However, it omits operationally important traits: the possible verdict values and how to act on them, latency or blocking behavior, what happens if the decision layer is unavailable, and whether the query is recorded. These gaps matter for a gate that sits in front of irreversible actions.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, return payload second, usage conditions third. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant clause (run this before irreversible steps) is easy to find.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must fully explain the return value, and it only lists field names without types or the enumeration of verdicts that an agent must branch on. For a pre-flight gate on destructive actions, the missing detail on interpreting the verdict leaves a real operational 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 100% and each of the three parameters is documented in the schema, including the note that 'goal' is optional but beneficial. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action against a specific resource: querying a decision layer for a verdict on a pending step before executing it. It also enumerates the return payload (verdict, action, confidence, risk triage, completion probability), so an agent knows exactly what the call produces. The opaque name 'jevqueue_decide' is fully resolved by the text.

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 two concrete trigger conditions: before a destructive or irreversible step, and before continuing work that may already be finished. That is clear contextual guidance rather than vague advice. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it (e.g. trivial reads) or naming an alternative, but no siblings exist to route between.

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