read_multiple_json_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('map of file paths to values') but fails to describe error handling (e.g., for missing files or invalid paths), performance implications, or any side effects like file locking. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and return value without any redundant information. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks details on error handling, performance, or usage context. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency and guidelines.

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 schema already documents both parameters (filePaths and path) adequately. The description adds minimal value by implying dot notation usage but does not provide additional syntax examples or constraints beyond what the schema specifies, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('Read values'), target resources ('multiple JSON files'), and method ('using dot notation'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_multiple_json_values (deletion) and write_json_values (writing). It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like merge_duplicate_keys or other read operations. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as file accessibility or JSON validity, and does not mention any exclusions or typical use cases.

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