Fix JSON

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context by listing specific error types repaired, and mentions backup creation, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose if repairs are lossy or if output is overwritten.

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 concise with bullet-listed parameter descriptions and a clear summary of repairs. It could be slightly more structured, but it's effective and front-loaded.

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 (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the main use case and parameters. It lacks detail on return values and edge cases, but for a repair tool this is adequate. The annotations provide additional context like idempotency.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minor clarity by listing the repairs and summarizing each parameter's purpose, but does not add further semantics beyond what the schema's descriptions provide.

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 repairs common JSON errors, listing specific issues (BOM, trailing commas, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like cc_validate_json and cc_convert_format by focusing on fixing rather than validating or converting.

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 implicitly suggests use when JSON files have common errors, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like cc_validate_json. No when-not-to-use or exclusionary conditions are provided.

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