json_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only says it extracts a dotted path. It conveys a non-mutating read operation and notes that input can be JSON text or an object, but discloses nothing about behavior on invalid JSON, missing keys, or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with every word earning its place. No filler, no redundancy; structure directly supports skimmability.

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 two-parameter getter with an output schema, the core invocation is mostly captured. However, the description's 'or an object' conflicts with the schema's string-only 'data' type, and there is no guidance on error handling or unsupported paths, leaving minor but real 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'path' uses dot notation and that 'data' can be JSON text or an object, adding meaning to the bare schema properties. It leaves out examples and edge-case semantics, but covers the essential role of both parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Extract' and names the resource ('a dotted path') plus acceptable input ('JSON text or an object'). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling write tools like json_set and json_merge.

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 a read-only use case but never states when to choose json_get over siblings or when not to use it. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing, so the agent must infer its role from the name and extraction semantics.

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