read_package_json

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states what the tool parses and returns, implying a non-destructive read operation, but does not explicitly mention that it does not modify the file, nor does it describe error behavior (e.g., missing file). The behavior is adequately conveyed for a simple read tool, but not richly detailed.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It lists the returned fields, and the output schema would provide structure. It could briefly mention the default path behavior, but that is already in the schema, so no critical information is missing.

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. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats that it parses package.json, while the schema already documents the path parameter and default. No additional semantics are provided.

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 'Parse and summarise a package.json file' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the exact fields returned. This distinguishes it from generic file readers like read_file and sibling tools for other config files like read_pyproject_toml.

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 its usage context (summarizing package.json) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_file or project_summary. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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