jev_should_nudge_continuation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the evaluation and veto behavior, but does not state side effects (e.g., whether it mutates state), required permissions, or the exact return format. It adds useful context about workflow phases but leaves key behavioral details unspecified.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every phrase adds value, including the workflow phases and veto conditions.

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 decision tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main evaluation logic and veto conditions. It does not explicitly state the return type (e.g., boolean or score), but 'evaluates whether' implies a decision. The workflow phase list provides useful context, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning, though it references the concept of a previous nudge, which aligns with previous_nudge_summary. This meets the baseline for a schema-heavy description.

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 evaluates whether an agent paused prematurely, with specific reference to workflow phases and a nudge protocol. It also mentions veto conditions, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like jev_abort_check or jev_verify_completion.

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 clear context on when the tool applies (when an agent might be paused prematurely) and specifies conditions that veto a nudge (waiting on user input or no progress). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, though the conditions imply usage boundaries.

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