jev_status

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 explicitly states the tool does not load a page, click, scroll, or generate model requests, effectively declaring its read-only and non-interactive nature. It also notes it inspects a 'live' session, implying current state. While it doesn't cover error handling or output structure, the key behavioral traits are transparent.

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 no filler. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides usage context, and the third clarifies exclusions. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, what it does not do, and what information can be reasoned about (URL, text, controls, recent actions). The only minor gap is the lack of explicit output format or structure, but the absence of an output schema lowers that expectation.

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 zero description coverage for session_id, so the description must compensate. It does by referring to a 'live Jev browser session' and instructing to 'Use it after jev_browse,' which implies session_id is the identifier returned by that preceding call. This contextualizes the parameter even though the description does not explicitly define its format or origin.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Inspect a live Jev browser session') and immediately distinguishes it from action-taking tools by adding 'without taking another browser action.' It also explicitly names jev_browse as the preceding tool, making it clear this is a passive observation tool, not an action tool. This is unambiguous and differentiates from siblings.

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 gives a clear 'when to use' instruction: 'Use it after jev_browse to reason from the current URL, visible text, supported controls, and recent actions.' It also provides 'when not' by stating it does not load, click, scroll, or generate model requests. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like jev_stop or jev_extract_products, so it falls just short of a perfect 5.

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