Jev change-risk assessment

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral context beyond those: the server cannot inspect Git/files itself, and high-risk or incomplete evidence never yields an automatic approval. This materially shapes how an agent should interpret results.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the subsequent sentences provide valuable constraints rather than redundant restatement.

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 description captures purpose and a key safety behavior, but with 12 parameters, zero parameter descriptions, and no output schema, it leaves an agent guessing about how to set most optional fields and what the return payload looks like. For a tool this complex, the description is too sparse to be considered 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 12 parameters, so the description must carry the burden of explaining them. It only hints at host-supplied context and evidence completeness; it says nothing about model, tests, redacted, review_at, auto_accept, changed_files, deployment_context, repository_context, or truncated. Required request and diff are inferable by name, but most parameters remain opaque.

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 names a specific object ('risk for a proposed change') and enumerates six concrete risk dimensions: security, operational, compatibility, scope, reversibility, and blast-radius. This is far more specific than the generic sibling names and leaves little ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It clearly states the intended context: assess a proposed change using host-supplied context, and it warns that this server does not read Git or files. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the risk-assessment framing is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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