Jev issue classifier

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful constraints beyond that: the result set is limited to allowlisted owner candidates, 'unknown' is a legitimate result, and it must not invent an owner. This directly informs invocation and output interpretation. It does not contradict 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 sentences with no filler; the core classification contract is front-loaded and the owner-candidate constraint earns its place.

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 read-only classification tool the core behavior is clear, but the absence of an output schema combined with seven parameters, only two of which are implied by the description, leaves gaps around optional inputs and return shape. An agent could make a basic call, but not with full confidence about optional parameters or output format.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description had to carry the parameter semantics. It clarifies that issue is the text to classify and that owner_candidates forms an allowlist, but model, evidence, truncated, evidence_complete, and repository_context are left unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Classify') and resource ('an issue'), and specifies the output dimensions: category, severity, urgency, and an allowlisted owner candidate. It also clarifies the boundary behavior (may return unknown, must not invent an owner), which distinguishes it from generic 'evaluate' or 'review' siblings.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative sibling tools are named. The intended usage can be inferred from the name and subject matter, but the description leaves the agent to determine when classify_issue should be preferred over jev_evaluate, jev_review, etc.

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