ag_json_canonicalize

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

No annotations are present, and the description does disclose determinism, fixture verification, guest rate-limiting, optional api_key usage, and provenance-envelope returns. However, it omits error behavior, exact auth requirements, and any size or rate-limit details, which would be needed for full transparency.

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 moderately concise but repeats return information and includes embedded JSON schemas that add bulk. It could be tightened by removing redundant statements and integrating the schema reference more cleanly.

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?

It provides use cases, output schema, and provenance context, but the contradictory payload schema and lack of clear field-level parameter descriptions leave important gaps for an agent deciding how to construct the call.

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?

Parameter documentation is inconsistent: the inline 'payload' schema requires an object with a required 'value' property, while the structured input schema allows any object with additionalProperties true. The api_key parameter is only mentioned in prose as a way to access member budget, not fully defined.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as RFC 8785 (JCS) canonicalization plus SHA-256 hashing of JSON values, and distinguishes it from sibling JSON utilities by its specific deterministic serialization and hashing purpose.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: content-addressing, key deduplication, and signature payloads, and notes that Agent Guild uses the same canonicalization. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the unique purpose makes appropriate use clear.

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