validate_json

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: strict RFC 8259 validation, return structure with ok boolean, and on success returns parsed value, on failure returns precise byte position and human-readable message. This is thorough for a validation tool.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first declares purpose and mode, second details the return behavior. No extraneous words.

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 simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains input, validation mode, and the two possible outcomes (success/failure) with specific details (parsed value, byte position, message). Complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'text' parameter described as 'The JSON text to validate.' The description adds no further semantics beyond the schema, but the tool's simplicity means the schema suffices.

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?

Describes itself as a 'Strict-mode RFC 8259 validator' specifying both the standard and mode, and distinguishes from siblings like parse_partial_json and extract_json_from_text by emphasizing strict compliance and precise error reporting.

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 mentions 'strict-mode' implying a specific validation standard but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its alternatives (parse_partial_json, extract_json_from_text). Use is implied rather than clearly guided.

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