get_system_json

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 states the tool retrieves data (implying a read-only operation) and describes the return format, but lacks critical details such as whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what happens if the file doesn't exist, or if the operation is idempotent. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return details in separate lines. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information. However, the lack of usage guidelines or behavioral context means it could be more comprehensive without sacrificing conciseness.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and return format, which is sufficient for a straightforward read operation. However, it misses opportunities to clarify usage relative to siblings or address potential errors, making it just barely complete enough for an agent to use correctly in ideal conditions.

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%, with the single parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema as 'Name of the system JSON file to retrieve'. The description repeats this information without adding meaningful context beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid names, format constraints, or how it relates to files listed by 'list_system_json'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('system JSON file by name'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_system_json' (which presumably lists files rather than retrieving content) or 'search_system_json' (which might search within files), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific retrieval tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_system_json' or 'search_system_json'. It mentions the required parameter but offers no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and basic parameter info.

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