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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints that local code execution occurs, but says nothing about side effects, sandboxing, permissions, whether the run is reversible, or what happens on failure — critical omissions for a tool that executes skills.

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?

One tight sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action. It is under-specified rather than bloated, which this dimension should not penalize heavily.

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 an action-executing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin to let an agent call it confidently or predict results.

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 single 'task' parameter is not described at all in the description. The agent gets no hint about format, granularity, or expected content of the task string.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Run') and describes a two-stage pipeline: JEV skill selection followed by local Skill Executor execution. It is more than a tautology, but the jargon ('JEV', 'Skill Executor') is unexplained and it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling 'controlled_agent_run'.

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 indication of when to use this versus 'controlled_agent_run', 'jev_decide', or 'list_skills'. The presence of a near-twin sibling makes the absence of any routing/exclusion guidance a real gap.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a state mutation (approve and resume), but says nothing about required permissions, whether approval is reversible, what happens to the run after resumption, or failure behavior for an invalid/stale action id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation and its targeting condition come first. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented required parameters, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot determine permissions, preconditions beyond 'waiting for review', or the result of a successful approval.

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?

Both parameters are required with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains neither run_id nor action_id. An agent must guess that action_id identifies the waiting action and run_id scopes it to a workflow run; nothing in the text compensates for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb pair (approve and resume) and a specific resource (one action currently waiting for caller review), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like jev_decide or agent_run, which could plausibly involve approval flows.

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 phrase 'currently waiting for caller review' implies a precondition and thus an implied usage context: only call this on actions already paused for human/caller approval. No alternative tool is named and no when-not guidance is given, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that actions are routed through policy, permits, and a sandbox, which implies gating and possible blocking of actions - genuine behavioral context beyond the name. But it says nothing about what happens when a permit is denied, whether approval (approve_action) is required, state changes, or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the pipeline order (policy, JEV, permits, sandbox) is informative. It is slightly jargon-dense with no expansion of JEV, but structurally efficient.

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 two-parameter orchestration tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits return behavior, what a controlled run produces, how blocking/permit denial is surfaced, and how it chains with jev_decide or approve_action.

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% for both parameters, and the description offers no explanation of 'task' or 'max_steps'. 'Proposed local actions' loosely hints at the task input, but max_steps (default 5) is entirely undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 pairs a verb ('Run') with a resource ('proposed local actions') and names the machinery involved (policy, JEV, permits, sandbox), so the general intent is inferable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling agent_run, and 'JEV' is unexplained jargon even though jev_decide exists as a sibling. Purpose is vague rather than specific.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus agent_run, jev_decide, or approve_action, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The reader can only guess that this is the 'controlled' counterpart to agent_run from the name itself.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure but provides none. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or what the output looks like.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with two required parameters. Similar to the 'Process' calibration example, brevity here reflects missing content rather than good conciseness.

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 no output schema annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what a 'constrained decision' means, how to format inputs, or what to expect as a result.

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 does not explain the 'task' or 'options' parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 verb ('Make') and a resource ('decision'), but 'constrained decision with the JEV Decision Engine' is undefined jargon. It does not clarify what kind of decision or how it differs from sibling tools like agent_run.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The single sentence offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden alone. It usefully discloses the scope (skills supported by 'this instance', i.e., instance-specific rather than global), but says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or whether listing can fail. For a low-risk enumeration tool the gap is modest but real.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that fully states the action, the returned artifact, and the scope, with no filler.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly confines itself to the operation and its instance-specific scope. It is nearly complete for a simple discovery tool, missing only permission/side-effect framing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema.

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 verb (list) and resource (skill names) with an explicit scope (this PermitMCP instance), so an agent immediately knows what it returns. It does not need to differentiate from siblings, which are entirely different operation types (jev_decide, agent_run, approve_action).

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or follow-up tools. The usage is only weakly implied by the name and the fact that it enumerates available skills.

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