export_json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation produces a new file and returns a confirmation with path and size, which implies the source document is not mutated. However, it never states what happens if output_path already exists, whether the source document can be invalidated, or what an invalid alias/path produces — significant gaps for a write-to-disk operation.

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 core action and its motivating use case are front-loaded in the first two sentences, then Args and Returns follow in a predictable order. The Args block largely restates parameter names already in the schema, so it is slightly padded, but nothing is truly wasted.

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 (the description does so anyway as a bonus). All four parameters are covered and the source-vs-output distinction is implied. What remains unaddressed is failure behavior — invalid alias, missing path, or pre-existing output file — which matters for a file-writing tool with no annotations.

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 does, documenting all four parameters. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema by clarifying that path uses dot-notation and defaults to root, and that indent controls JSON indentation with default 2. Only a note on alias resolution (e.g., must come from list_loaded) is missing.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export a value at a path to a new JSON file.' That is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like get_value or jsonpath_query, and the 'JSON file' framing implicitly separates it from export_csv. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative outright, so it lands just below the top mark.

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?

'Useful for saving a filtered subset or nested section of a large document' gives a concrete use case that tells an agent when this is the right tool. There are no explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer export_csv or jsonpath_query instead), which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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