json_json_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the core function (returning top-level keys) but does not mention behavior for non-object inputs, error handling, or performance implications. It is adequate but minimal.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It directly states the action and result, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple tool but lacks context on input validation (e.g., what if input is not a valid JSON object) and error conditions. Given the existence of an output schema, return value details are not required, but additional behavioral notes would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'data'. The description adds meaning by implying that 'data' should be a JSON object string, which goes beyond the type 'string'. It clarifies the expected format, though it could be more explicit about validity.

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 clearly states the verb 'Return', the resource 'top-level keys of a JSON object', and the output format 'as a JSON array'. It distinguishes itself from sibling JSON tools like json_json_get, json_json_filter, etc., which handle different operations.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios, such as when to use json_json_get for specific values or json_json_keys for extracting key names. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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