jev_score

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 discloses the return behavior ('returns weighted score & distribution'), which is helpful, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or determinism. For a scoring tool, this is acceptable but not exhaustive; it adds some behavioral context beyond the schema.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core concept ('Calibrated hierarchical scoring') and then elaborates concisely. No unnecessary words; every clause adds information.

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?

The tool has three parameters and no output schema, so the description must cover the return behavior, which it does ('returns weighted score & distribution'). It could elaborate on how 'calibrated' works or provide an example of criteria ordering, but the schema example already covers that. For a scoring tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with full coverage (100%). The description adds value by explaining the ordering of criteria ('ordered progression of criteria levels') and the concept of 'calibrated hierarchical scoring', which enriches the meaning beyond the schema. It also hints at the output type. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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's purpose: calibrated hierarchical scoring using Jev's Score primitive, rating context against an ordered progression of criteria levels. It specifies the verb ('rates'), the resource ('context against criteria levels'), and the result ('weighted score & distribution'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like jev_choice or jev_batch_decisions, which likely serve different functions.

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 implies the tool is for scoring content against a hierarchy of criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this when you need to evaluate severity' or exclusionary language. The usage is implied through the phrasing but lacks explicit guidance.

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