Single tool 'judge' has a well-structured input schema with proper type definitions and descriptions for all parameters. Tool description is comprehensive (250+ chars) and explains the purpose, input types, and output envelope clearly. Schema uses Zod validation with union types, enums, and constraints (e.g., timeout_ms max 60000, payload size cap 256 KiB). However, output schema is defined but not integrated into the tool registration visible in the code snippet. Error handling returns a fallback envelope with error messages, which is good for agent recovery. The tool is read-only (no state mutation), reducing risk. Main gaps: output schema not explicitly documented in tool registration, no per-parameter descriptions in the schema itself (only in code comments), and the tool does one thing well but lacks composition patterns since it's a singleton.

• Expose the outputSchema in the tool registration so LLMs see the expected response structure (answers, model, usage, fallback, error fields).
• Rename 'judge' to 'evaluate_state_with_typed_questions' or 'ask_typed_questions_about_state' to make the action explicit and verb-first.
• Add per-parameter descriptions directly in the tool schema registration (not just Zod validation). Include examples: 'criteria for noul type: {"true": "description", "false": "description"}'.
• Enhance error messages with recovery hints: 'Payload exceeds 256 KiB. Reduce state size or split questions into multiple calls.' and 'Invalid question type. Must be one of: noul, choice, score.'
• Document valid model values in the 'model' parameter description, or accept an enum of known models (e.g., 'jev-latest', 'jev-v1') to prevent hallucination.