gate402_json_repair

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It lists types of errors handled but does not disclose behavior on failure (e.g., returns null or error), any destructive actions, or performance characteristics. Minimal transparency beyond basic function.

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 very concise (one sentence plus a free note). It could be improved by moving the core action before the 'FREE' notice, but it remains direct with no wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains input and examples but omits output behavior (e.g., returns valid JSON string or null) and any limitations. Adequate but with clear 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 the single parameter 'text', and the description adds valuable examples of input (trailing commas, single quotes, unquoted keys) that go beyond the schema's 'Broken JSON string to repair', providing concrete meaning.

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: to coerce malformed JSON (e.g., trailing commas, single quotes, unquoted keys) into valid JSON. It uses a specific verb 'coerce' and resource 'malformed JSON', and is distinct from sibling tools like dedup or HTML conversion.

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 mentions 'FREE' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. Siblings have different purposes, so implied usage is for JSON repair, but no exclusions or context are given.

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