validate_jsonc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it parses and validates, and mentions local-only constraints. It does not disclose what happens on invalid input (e.g., throws error vs. returns a boolean), the return format, or whether any side effects occur. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by constraints. Every word adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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 covers what the tool does and its input constraints, but lacks information about output behavior (e.g., return type, error handling). Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at what 'validate' means in terms of results. The local-only and no-external-service constraints are helpful, but the lack of output details leaves the definition incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (text and filePath). The description adds the 'local only' constraint but does not elaborate on format, precedence, or how parameters interact. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal extra semantic value.

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 parses JSONC (including comments and trailing commas) and validates it, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling validate_json by explicitly targeting JSONC, and from schema_validate by focusing on syntax rather than schema compliance.

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?

It provides clear constraints: only local files/strings, and explicitly notes it does not fetch URLs or contact external services. This helps an agent decide when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like validate_json for plain JSON or schema_validate for schema-based validation.

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