validate_json

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool operates only on local files/strings and does not make external calls, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens on successful validation (e.g., returns a boolean, throws an error, returns parsed JSON) or the behavior when neither/both parameters are provided. This missing behavioral detail is significant for a validation tool without an output schema.

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 and front-loaded. It opens with the core purpose, then adds scope and constraints in short, clear sentences. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the main constraints (local-only, no external calls, strict JSON). However, it lacks critical details: it does not specify whether text and filePath are mutually exclusive, what the return value is (boolean, parsed object, error), or error handling. An agent may not know how to interpret the result or whether to provide one input or both. This incompleteness could lead to misuse.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the qualifier 'strict JSON' and 'Local files/strings only,' which clarifies the expected input format. However, it introduces a potential conflict: the schema says 'JSON/JSONC' while the description says 'strict JSON,' which might confuse the agent about whether JSONC is acceptable. The description does not resolve this ambiguity, so it adds limited value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Parse and validate strict JSON.' It identifies the specific resource (JSON) and the action (validate). The phrase 'strict JSON' distinguishes it from validate_jsonc, and 'Local files/strings only' adds a scope that differentiates it from tools that might fetch remote content. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context: it only handles local files/strings and explicitly states it does not fetch URLs or contact external services. This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (local data) and implicitly when it is not (remote data). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like validate_jsonc for JSONC or schema_validate for schema validation, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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