yaml_to_json

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating support for multi-document YAML, anchors, aliases, and Kubernetes config files, which informs the agent of the tool's capabilities beyond a simple conversion. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. It is concise, avoids fluff, and every phrase (multi-document, anchors, aliases, Kubernetes) adds value. There is no wasted text.

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 simple conversion tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and readOnlyHint, the description is largely complete. It covers the input capabilities and implies a JSON output. It could mention the output format (e.g., JSON string) or error handling, but given the simplicity and the schema's coverage, it is sufficient.

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 100%, so both parameters (yaml and pretty) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-specific details beyond the YAML capabilities, which are not tied to a specific parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema covers everything.

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 the exact operation ('Convert YAML content to JSON') and differentiates itself from sibling tools by listing specific capabilities (multi-document YAML, anchors, aliases, Kubernetes config files). This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, and it clearly distinguishes from json_to_yaml or other converters.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name is self-explanatory, there is no mention of 'use this for YAML to JSON; for the reverse use json_to_yaml' or any exclusion criteria. The only usage hint is the mention of Kubernetes configs, which is a context but not a routing guideline.

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