jev_ask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the question payload format but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, whether authentication is required, or what the response behavior is. 'Ask' implies a query, but that is not made explicit.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional detail about question types is dense but necessary and organized clearly. There is no filler or repetition.

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 two required parameters and no annotations, the description leaves a significant gap: the meaning of 'state' is undefined, and there is no usage context relative to siblings. The output schema exists but does not help with state semantics or selection guidance, so an agent may struggle to invoke the tool 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 description thoroughly documents the 'questions' parameter, including the type enum (noul/choice/score) and the criteria structures for each type. However, the required 'state' parameter is only described as 'a state' with no format, allowed values, or examples, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 uses a specific verb ('Ask'), names the resource ('local Open-Jev server'), and specifies the domain ('typed questions about a state'). It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like jev_plan or jev_analyze.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. An agent would not know whether to call jev_ask before, after, or instead of jev_plan or jev_analyze.

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