data_json_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the path syntax but does not disclose behavior beyond that—e.g., error handling, what happens for invalid paths, or whether the tool is read-only. The description is minimal and does not cover expected limitations or side effects.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences in Chinese, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by syntax and examples. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or unnecessary information. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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 query tool, the description covers the essential path syntax. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., matched value, null, error message). It lacks completeness regarding return format, error handling, or behavior with complex nested structures. Adequate but has gaps.

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% for both parameters, with descriptions. The description adds significant value by explaining the path syntax and giving examples (e.g., 'users[0].name', 'data.items[*].id'), which clarifies how to use the 'path' parameter beyond the schema's basic description. This enhances the semantic understanding.

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: query JSON data using simple path expressions. It provides syntax examples and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like data_convert or sys_json_valid. The specific verb 'query' and resource 'JSON data' make it unambiguous.

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 querying JSON by providing path syntax, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on when not to use or mentions of alternative tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or recommendations.

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