jev_explore

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

Annotations already indicate destructive, open-world, non-read-only behavior, and the description honestly reinforces this with 'Default submission guards are conservative heuristics, not a read-only security boundary.' It also discloses return behavior, session continuation, and review semantics beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 dense but tightly packed, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Each sentence contributes a distinct point: purpose, question semantics, output format, continuation, and safety caveats. It loses a point only because several important caveats are compressed into a single running paragraph.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, nested objects, and destructive annotations, the description is only partially complete. It explains the high-level contract and safety posture but omits operational details such as how to configure session continuation, what `values` or `allowCommit` affect, and the exact structure of the returned handoff.

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 compensate, but it only loosely covers `objective` and `questions`. The other nine parameters, including `url`, `values`, `sessionId`, `timeoutMs`, `maxCalls`, `maxSteps`, `maxTokens`, `allowCommit`, and `headed`, receive no semantic explanation.

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 names the action: 'Delegate a complete browser exploration objective to Jev' and explains the core mechanism of supplying unknown questions with verbatim evidence. It also distinguishes itself from simpler browser tools by noting it returns 'a compact handoff, not the full DOM' and that the browser stays open. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: for complete exploration objectives and questions whose answers are unknown. It also warns to stay 'within the user-authorized scope' and clarifies that ready_for_review is evidence, not certified correctness. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selection compared to siblings.

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