json_format

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful information by stating that the tool 'returns a structural summary (node counts, max depth, top distinct keys),' but it is ambiguous whether this summary is returned for all modes or only for 'analyze.' It also does not disclose error handling, exact output format for pretty/minify, or whether the operation is read-only. These gaps warrant a score of 3, reflecting partial but insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the key verbs, and contains no filler or redundant information. The first sentence states the operations, and the second sentence adds the return value context. Every word earns its place, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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?

This tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description alone must provide sufficient context for correct invocation. It fails to explain what each mode returns (e.g., does pretty return formatted JSON only?), how `indent` affects output, or how validation errors are signaled. For a tool of this complexity, the description is incomplete, meriting a score of 2.

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 by explaining parameters. It implicitly lists the `mode` values ('pretty-print, minify, validate, analyze') but does not describe the `indent` parameter or the expected format of the `json` string. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, and the missing parameters leave the agent guessing. A score of 2 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs and resource: 'Validate, pretty-print, minify or analyse a JSON document.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like json_to_csv by focusing on formatting and structural analysis rather than conversion. The mention of returning a structural summary further clarifies the intent.

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 implicitly communicates when to use the tool—whenever a JSON document needs validation, formatting, or analysis. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as json_to_csv. Since the use case is obvious from the verbs, this is 'clear context, no exclusions,' aligning with a score of 4.

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