json_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it queries JSON, but does not describe return value, error handling (e.g., invalid JSON, missing path), or whether it is read-only. Minimal behavioral context beyond the operation itself.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core concept and provides an illustrative example. Every word contributes value, with no unnecessary filler.

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 tool is simple with full schema coverage, but there is no output schema and no behavioral details. The description does not explain what is returned or what happens on error, making it minimally viable but not complete for an agent that needs to anticipate edge cases.

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 100%, with both 'json' and 'path' well-defined in the schema. The description adds a concrete example of the path format, but no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Query JSON with dot-notation path (e.g. 'users.0.name')' clearly states the verb (query) and resource (JSON), making the tool's purpose explicit. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like format_json and json_diff, which are formatting or diff 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 example path implies usage, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Since no sibling tool directly competes, the implied usage is acceptable but not fully explicit.

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