get_keys

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait — arrays return an item count rather than indices — but says nothing about failure behavior (invalid alias, nonexistent path) or the prerequisite that the alias come from load_json.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence followed by compact Args/Returns blocks; every line contributes. Slightly docstring-formulaic but no wasted prose.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool this covers the essential call semantics, and the explicit Returns section is redundant-but-harmless given an output schema exists. The main omission is the load_json prerequisite and error/edge-case behavior for missing paths.

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: alias is defined as the loaded document's alias, and path gets a notation specification, three concrete examples, and an explanation that empty string means root. Minor gap: no mention of where valid alias values come from.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get all keys at a given path in a loaded JSON document") and clarifies the dual behavior on objects vs arrays. An agent can distinguish it from get_value/get_structure, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with the many similarly-named siblings (distinct_paths, get_structure, jsonpath_query).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: "loaded document" and the required alias signal that load_json must run first, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for retrieving values instead of keys. An agent must infer the choice between this and get_structure/get_value.

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