jevguard_calibrate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the internal decision logic (thresholds for top_prob and dispersion_gap) and implies a non-mutating evaluation, but it does not state whether the tool returns a report, modifies state, or requires specific permissions. This is a meaningful but not fatal gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every phrase contributes: the verb, the resource, and the two key detection criteria. It is compact and immediately 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?

The tool has four parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining return values and side effects. It covers the evaluation logic but omits what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, and the role of noul_uncertainty_margin. An agent would not know what to expect from invoking it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly linking min_top_prob to 'top_prob < 0.40' and min_dispersion_gap to flat distributions, clarifying the thresholds' roles. It does not mention noul_uncertainty_margin, but the schema already documents that parameter adequately.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Evaluates') and resource ('probability distributions across answers'), and specifies the purpose (identify ambiguity, low confidence, flat distributions). However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'jevguard_evaluate', so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to assess answer distributions for ambiguity or low confidence. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives like jevguard_evaluate, so it lacks the explicit routing that a 5 would require.

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