jev_choice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema: the tool is 'ultra-fast,' evaluates context against options, and returns both the winning selection and a confidence distribution. It does not cover edge cases or side effects, but for a classification primitive this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded, opening with the core classification purpose before stating the evaluation and return behavior. Every clause adds useful information, though 'Ultra-fast' is a minor marketing flourish.

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 tool with three required parameters, a nested options object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally viable. It explains the high-level return shape but does not fully describe output structure, tie-handling, or how instruction and options interact. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the description leaves some invocation context implicit.

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 baseline is 3 even without parameter detail in the description. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema already documents context, options with an example, and instruction thoroughly.

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 identifies the tool as performing 'single-choice classification' with a specific verb ('Evaluates') and resource ('Jev's Choice primitive'). It states the outcome: 'returns the winning selection with confidence distribution,' and the 'single-choice' framing distinguishes it from siblings like jev_batch_decisions.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'single-choice classification' and 'Evaluates context against predefined options,' so an agent can infer when it applies. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as jev_score, jev_noul, or jev_batch_decisions.

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