Jev requirement coverage

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that evaluation is per criterion and produces four specific coverage statuses, which is not present in the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The action, input, and output statuses are front-loaded, and every phrase contributes meaning.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete. It gives a clear high-level purpose but leaves the agent guessing about how most parameters affect behavior and what the response structure will be.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely references 'requirements', 'diff', and 'verification evidence'. It does not explain the remaining parameters such as model, tests, redacted, truncated, review_at, auto_accept, evidence_complete, or repository_context.

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 ('Check'), a clear resource ('each supplied requirement or acceptance criterion'), and the evaluation context ('diff and verification evidence'). It also names the four possible statuses, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jev_verify or jev_review.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jev_verify, jev_review, or jev_evaluate. The use case is only implied by the wording 'each supplied requirement...', with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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