tool_json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions inputs and outputs ('value' string, 'parsed' json), with no details on error handling, validation, edge cases, or what 'parsed' means structurally. This is almost entirely opaque.

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 short, but brevity comes at the cost of substance. It has a structured Parameters/Outputs layout, yet the content is under-specified; this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. A minimal description that omits essential information earns a low score.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, the tool is nearly a black box. The presence of numerous sibling JSON tools (tool_json_parse, tool_json_stringify, tool_json_format) makes the lack of distinguishing context critical. The description is far from sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. However, the descriptions in both the schema and the tool description are tautological ('Value', 'Parsed') and add no semantic meaning beyond the parameter names. The tool description does not clarify format, constraints, or examples, so it stays at baseline without upward adjustment.

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 is essentially '[basic] JSON', which merely restates the tool name 'tool_json' without stating what the tool does. The parameter and output listing (value -> parsed) hints at a JSON parsing operation, but no explicit verb or resource is stated, failing to distinguish it from siblings like tool_json_parse or tool_json_stringify.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling JSON tools. The description provides no context, use cases, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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