Примеры JSONata

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the return shape {id, question, sections, expression, explanation}, the default limit, the special template=true substitution requirement, and conditional YAML metamodel fragments when SEAF_METAMODEL_PATH is configured. These are concrete behavioral details an agent would not otherwise know.

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 front-loaded with the when-to-call guidance, followed by return shape, special cases, and the next tool. Its sentences are dense and purposeful, with no wasted framing.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so completely: it lists returned fields, the limit default, template handling, and optional metamodel YAML additions. An agent has enough context to invoke this correctly and know what to do next.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the queries parameter: it specifies what fields are searched (question, group, sections, expression text) and notes that Russian word forms match by prefix. The limit parameter is mostly restated from the schema, keeping this from a 5.

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 states a specific verb-like action (take a proven example) and resource (JSONata query examples), and scopes it with keyword search over question, group, sections, and expression text. It clearly distinguishes itself from the downstream seaf_jsonata_query sibling by naming it as the next step.

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 explicitly says when to call this tool: before writing JSONata, to get a proven example of a similar query. It also names the alternative/downstream tool seaf_jsonata_query for applying the adapted expression, leaving no ambiguity about routing.

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