format_json

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior (pretty-printed JSON or error message) but doesn't mention effects, safety, or edge cases like invalid input handling beyond 'clear error message'. It lacks context on whether the operation is non-destructive, though this is implied for a formatter.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and outcome. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 utility, the description covers the tool's core function and return value, but it leaves gaps: no param semantics, no usage guidelines, and no context on validation specifics beyond error messages. With no annotations and sparse schema, it's adequate but not rich.

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%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the main input (JSON string) and hints at indentation through 'pretty-printed', but doesn't explicitly define the 'indent' parameter or explain its default/range. This adds minimal value over the schema's bare types.

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 formats and validates a JSON string, with a specific output of pretty-printed JSON or an error message. This distinguishes it from sibling utility tools like generate_uuid or base64_convert, which serve different purposes.

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 for formatting/validating JSON strings but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Sibling tools are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely, but the description doesn't explicitly say when to use this over others.

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