format_json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses multiple behaviors: format, validate, minify, pretty-print, analyze structure, detect errors, inspect keys. However, it does not mention if the tool is read-only or any constraints like input size limits.

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 relatively concise with five sentences, but includes some redundancy (repeated 'JSON Processing') and the 'Menu ID' field which may not be essential for the agent. It is front-loaded with key actions. Overall well-structured but could be trimmed slightly.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and an open input schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify how to invoke the tool, what parameters to pass, or what the return format is. The recommendation to use describe_tool shifts the burden away, making it insufficient for independent agent use.

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?

The input schema is an open object with additionalProperties, effectively parameter-free. Schema coverage is 100% but the schema itself is minimal. The description does not explain what properties the input object should have (e.g., 'data', 'mode'), nor does it clarify how parameters control the tool's behavior. It relies on external describe_tool, leaving the agent to guess.

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 it processes JSON: formats, validates, minifies, pretty-prints, analyzes structure, and detects syntax errors. It also mentions 'Built for API debugging,' distinguishing its context. Sibling tools like format_json_visualizer suggest this is the core JSON formatter, and the description effectively sets it apart.

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 provides context ('Built for API debugging') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It hints at using describe_tool for more guidance, but lacks direct when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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