jevlab_bias_audit

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that four distinct bias classes are measured, but says nothing about how the audit runs, what it returns, or what 'synthetic' default implies operationally.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing 'default is synthetic' clause is cryptic and slightly under-explained for the space it consumes.

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 carries the burden of explaining what the audit reports, and it does not. For a tool whose result is the whole point (bias scores across four dimensions), the absence of any return-value or result-format context leaves a real gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'pairs' parameter and its expected a/b/forward/swapped structure. The description's 'default is synthetic' only loosely connects to that and adds no syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Measure') and enumerates the bias dimensions examined (position, length, format, provenance-based self-preference), which is far more than a restatement of the tool name. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like jevlab_bench, jevlab_calibrate and jevlab_list_rubrics, though it never explicitly references 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?

The only guidance is 'default is synthetic,' which hints at a default mode but does not say when to use this audit versus bench or calibrate. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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