tool_json_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists parameters and outputs, with no mention of error handling for invalid JSON, whether sortKeys reorders keys, whether indent is spaces, or how minified and formatted relate. The 'Outputs' section suggests some return behavior but is minimal and potentially conflicting with the input schema.

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 brief and structurally organized into Parameters/Outputs, but it is under-specified. The 'Outputs' section is potentially misleading given the input schema, and the parameter list adds little beyond the schema. It is concise but not sufficiently informative.

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 formatting tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, error behavior, input constraints, and clear input/output relationships. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.

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 mostly repeats parameter names and types without adding semantic meaning, such as clarifying that 'data' must be a JSON string or how 'indent' interacts with 'minified'. The description also lists 'formatted' and 'minified' as outputs even though they appear in the input schema, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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 more of a parameter/output list than a clear functional statement. The verb 'format' appears only in the tool name/title, not explicitly in the description ('[data] JSON Format'). However, the combination of data, indent, sortKeys and formatted/minified outputs makes the tool's purpose inferable as JSON formatting, though it does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like tool_json_stringify or tool_json_parse.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name and parameter list alone.

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