data_json_schema_validator

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

The description discloses the schema draft version (2020-12), use of Ajv with format support, and detailed error reporting. With no annotations, this provides good behavioral context, though it does not cover limitations or response format.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. The inclusion of 'Menu ID' is slightly redundant, but overall efficient and structured.

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?

The description lacks output schema information and does not explain success response format or error reporting structure. For a complex tool with nested parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to use effectively without external guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add detail about parameters but only implies schema and instance without describing their structure or behavior. This leaves the agent reliant on the raw schema, which is detailed but lacks explanations.

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 validates a JSON instance against a JSON Schema (Draft 2020-12) with detailed error reporting, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on schema validation, a unique function among listed tools.

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 implies usage for JSON schema validation but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. The reference to describe_tool for full guidance partially compensates.

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