websex_jq

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses operational context (execution namespace, relative paths for artifacts), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, how errors surface, or output handling. Adequate but incomplete for a parameterized execution tool.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and execution context. No filler, though the final sentence is slightly redundant with the namespace mention.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the definition covers purpose and usage well but leaves parameter semantics largely unaddressed, which is the main completeness gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. It never explains engagement_id, the arguments array (jq filter/options), stdin (the input JSON), or working_directory; the closest it comes is the 'relative paths for engagement artifacts' hint tied loosely to working_directory.

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 verb set (parse, query, transform, validate) against a specific resource (JSON via jq), and frames the scope as the selected engagement. It implies the sibling distinction by contrasting with 'brittle regular expressions,' though it never names websex_grep or websex_openapi_inspect directly.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: prefer this over regex for JSON and OpenAPI documents. It also adds operational context (runs from the engagement namespace, use relative paths for artifacts). It stops short of stating exclusions or naming an alternative tool explicitly, so it isn't a full 5.

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