Fix JSON

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint: true and destructiveHint: false, aligning with the description's focus on repair (not creation/destruction). The description adds value by listing specific repairs (BOM, trailing commas, single quotes, comments, NUL bytes). However, it does not disclose what happens to the original file if no backup is created, or whether the repair preserves formatting.

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 two clear sections: a summary line and a parameter list formatted in a readable way. No superfluous text. Could be slightly improved by keeping the parameter list inline, but overall efficient.

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 complexity (3 simple parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers the essentials. The list of error types provides valuable context. However, it could mention that the tool modifies the file in-place unless dry_run is true, and clarify the default behavior (e.g., backup created by default).

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. The description adds minimal extra info beyond the schema: it lists the same parameter names with types and brief explanations. The 'dry_run' parameter is explained as 'Only show problems', which mirrors the schema description. No additional formatting or constraints are provided.

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 it 'automatically repairs common JSON errors', specifying the verb 'repairs' and resource 'JSON file'. It lists specific error types (BOM, trailing commas, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fc_validate_json which likely only validates.

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 mentions parameters like dry_run and create_backup, giving context for when to use them. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., if you only need validation, use fc_validate_json). The sibling list includes fc_validate_json, but no cross-reference is provided.

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