data_json_path_evaluator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Hand-rolled parser — no eval', indicating safety/performance, but does not disclose output format, error handling, or limitations like maximum document size.

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 has four sentences, with the first line 'Menu ID: json_path_evaluator' being unnecessary for an agent. Key information is present but could be condensed to two sentences without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or coverage of RFC 9535. The reference to describe_tool suggests intentional brevity, but for standalone use, it lacks critical context.

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%, yet the description adds minimal parameter detail. It implies 'document' is the JSON and 'expression' is the JSONPath, but does not explain the document structure or expression syntax beyond the schema. The supported features are mentioned but not tied to parameters.

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 tool evaluates RFC 9535 JSONPath expressions against a JSON document, specifying supported features like filter expressions, recursive descent, array slices, and wildcards. It differentiates from siblings by being the only JSONPath evaluation tool.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It references describe_tool for full guidance, but within the description itself, there are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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