format_json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description explains the core transformation but does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid JSON), return format, or any side effects. For a pure transformation tool, this is minimal but not misleading; still, the lack of any behavioral nuance beyond the action itself leaves room for improvement.

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 sentence with zero redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and covers both modes. There is no wasted wording, and the length is perfectly proportional to the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with only two parameters, one enum, and no output schema, the description is sufficient to enable correct invocation. The agent can infer that the tool returns the transformed string, and the sibling context shows a set of utilities where this tool's role is clear. Minor gaps such as explicit return format or error behavior are not critical given the tool's straightforward nature.

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% – both 'json' and 'mode' have descriptive entries, and 'mode' includes an enum. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely echoes the mode options. Since the schema fully documents parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Pretty-print or minify a JSON string' states a specific verb (pretty-print or minify) and a clear resource (JSON string). It unambiguously differentiates the tool from all sibling utilities, which focus on other data transformations (base64, hashing, date parsing, etc.). No ambiguity or tautology.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool is clearly a JSON formatting utility and no sibling overlaps, there is no mention of scenarios or exclusions. The intended use is implied by the tool's name and description, but explicit guidance is absent.

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