tool_json_format

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only names the transformations and does not disclose how invalid JSON input is handled, whether output indentation follows a specific style, or any side effects or errors.

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 concise sentence with clear, front-loaded terms and no redundant wording. Every word contributes meaning, though some behavioral detail is sacrificed for brevity.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with an output schema and clear parameter schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. Missing context includes invalid-input behavior and explicit clarification of the default output mode beyond the schema's default value.

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 0% and the description does not explain the parameters in detail. It implicitly maps the minify boolean to minify vs pretty-print behavior but leaves json_string semantics and default behavior to be inferred from parameter names and schema defaults.

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 uses specific verbs 'Pretty-print' and 'minify' with a clear resource, 'a JSON string', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like tool_json_validate, which validates rather than formats JSON.

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 implies usage: call this when a JSON string needs to be formatted for readability or compactness. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as tool_json_validate.

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