jev_plan

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 transparency. It discloses a key non-obvious trait—the tool does not run the probe—and notes the output is what the local LLM planner would write, which sets expectations. It does not cover potential side effects or prerequisites, but for a generation tool this core trait is acknowledged.

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 filler, front-loaded with the distinguishing 'Generate (but do not run)' phrase. Every word earns its place, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 self-descriptive parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the non-execution side effect. It doesn't explain the Jev probe concept or sibling relationships, but those are not required for correct invocation given the schema's presence.

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 input schema describes the prompt parameter only by title, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It minimally ties the parameter to the purpose ('for this prompt'), but does not elaborate on format, constraints, or how the planner uses it. This is adequate but not rich.

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 action (generate) and a specific resource (the Jev probe), and explicitly calls out 'but do not run', which distinguishes it from tools that would execute or otherwise interact with probes. This clearly positions the tool as a planning/generation step within the Jev family.

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 the tool is used when you want the probe written without being executed, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings like jev_ask or jev_analyze, nor does it state when not to use it. Guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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