Evaluate with Jev

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: parallel execution of questions, the fact that Jev does not write code or prose, and the return fields (typed answers, probabilities, confidence, usage, action). Since annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and execution model.

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 sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the purpose ('Escape hatch'), then gives the usage condition, a behavioral limitation, parallelism, and return summary. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is highly scannable.

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 nested objects and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of what the tool returns (typed answers, probabilities, confidence, usage, action) and how it executes (parallel). It doesn't detail error cases or rate limits, but given the annotations already cover safety and the description covers the key behavior, it's reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, including the nested question structure. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond the schema (e.g., 'named' questions, parallel execution), but it doesn't clarify the 'criteria' field or provide additional guidance on constructing questions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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: send shared state plus noul/choice/score questions to TypeSafe Jev for evaluation. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by saying 'Use when no other jev_* recipe fits', giving an agent a clear discriminator without opening other schemas.

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 an explicit condition for when to use this tool ('when no other jev_* recipe fits') and states what Jev does not do ('does not write code or prose'), which sets expectations. This is a clear directive for selection among siblings.

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