Jev coding-loop router

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Does not edit files,' which is consistent, and reveals additional behavior: the policy mapping from confidence to action (auto|review|escalate) and the exact output flags. This goes beyond the annotations, though it could be richer about side effects or state changes.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with the usage trigger. It packs a lot of information about outputs and policy without excessive fluff. It is appropriately sized for a router tool with complex output.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return values, which it does reasonably well by listing the fields and flags. However, it leaves the optional parameters unexplained and the policy mechanism vague ('Policy in code maps confidence to action'). For a tool that is meant to be called before a decision, an agent might need more context on how to interpret risk/focus or how the optional parameters affect behavior.

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 coverage is only 50%; the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (model, review_at, auto_accept). It explains the output structure but not the meaning of these optional inputs. For a tool with 6 parameters, the description should clarify what these fields do, especially since they are not described in the schema either.

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: a router to call before spending a frontier turn on retry/stop/model-tier. It lists the specific outputs (next, model_tier, risk, focus, flags) and the policy mapping, making the tool's role distinct from the sibling evaluation/review/verify/screen/rank tools, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 provides a clear trigger: 'Call before spending a frontier turn on retry/stop/model-tier.' This gives an explicit condition for when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the context is specific and actionable.

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