jev_instructions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Return' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, rate limits, or what happens if the mode is invalid or null. The schema allows null by default, which conflicts slightly with the description's 'given intensity' phrasing, but this is not a direct contradiction. The lack of behavioral context is a significant 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 sentence with no waste. The action, resource, and parameter domain are all front-loaded. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description explains the parameter but not the return format. The word 'ruleset' is vague; the agent might need to know whether it returns text, a list, or a structured object. With no output schema, this is a notable gap that could affect correct invocation expectations.

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 schema provides only a type and default for 'mode' with zero description coverage. The description adds meaning by enumerating the acceptable values (lite, full, ultra), which directly informs the agent what to pass. It does not explain what happens for other inputs, but the core semantics are covered.

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 (Return) and resource (Jev ruleset), and enumerates the valid intensity values (lite, full, ultra). It is immediately clear what the tool does, and with no siblings there is no differentiation burden.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you need the ruleset for a given intensity. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but no siblings exist, so the context is sufficiently clear. A minor gap is that it doesn't specify that mode may be null (per schema) or how to handle an unsupported value.

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