jev_abort_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'before burning tokens' and 'Guards against' which implies a check operation, likely non-destructive. However, it doesn't specify what the tool returns (e.g., a go/no-go decision) or any side effects. The description adds some context but lacks critical behavioral details like whether it modifies anything or requires historical data.

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 description is two sentences, both front-loaded with key information. The first sentence lists the problems it guards against, and the second explains the core evaluation action. It's efficient with no fluff, every word earns 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?

Given the complexity of the tool (no output schema, no annotations, abstract purpose), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns or how an agent should interpret the result. It mentions 'before burning tokens' but not whether it returns a boolean, a verdict, or a modified plan. With no output schema and sparse annotations, a more complete description is needed for reliable invocation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial context for the parameters: it explains that 'proposed_step' is the plan to evaluate and 'recent_attempts_summary' is the history used for evaluation. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions by framing them in the context of avoiding doom loops, making the parameters' purpose clearer.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to guard against problematic loops and evaluate plans against attempt history. However, it does not explicitly name the verb 'check' but uses 'Guards against' and 'Evaluates', which is specific enough. The resource is the proposed plan and attempt history, though it's a bit abstract but distinct from siblings.

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 when to use it: before burning tokens on a proposed step, especially in scenarios with recent failures. It suggests a preventive context but doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. Given the sibling tools, it's clear that this is a pre-execution guard, but no explicit routing is provided.

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