Jev post-analysis (advisory)

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

With annotations only covering safety flags, the description adds the operationally critical facts: input truncation at 12 KB, an external service (openWorld) at TypeSafe, the consent/key access gate, and 'Never retried automatically.' Those are exactly the traits annotations cannot convey and directly affect a caller's error handling.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: destination and payload, analysis scope, then the advisory nature and access constraints. The truncation limit is front-loaded right on the payload noun.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent what the service will answer (the four fixed questions) and that the answer is advisory. A short note on the shape of the response or the failure mode when consent/key is missing would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 single `report` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It usefully discloses the 12 KB truncation limit, but says nothing about expected content, format, or what happens to the truncated remainder, leaving the bulk of semantics to inference.

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 ('Send a result or report') and a specific destination ('Jev at TypeSafe'), plus the exact analytical questions asked (self-contradiction, unbacked claims, risk, misclassified findings). This clearly separates it from the sibling agiw_jev_pre, though the differentiation is carried mostly by the pre/post naming rather than an explicit contrast.

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?

'Advisory, not a verdict' sets the trust level, and 'Refused unless consent is recorded and a key is available' names the prerequisite gates an agent must satisfy before calling. It lacks an explicit when-not or a pointer to agiw_jev_pre/'agiw_consent', so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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