winops_json_extract_from_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds a concrete return format and an example, which clarifies the output behavior beyond the annotations. It does not discuss error conditions or edge cases, but for a read-only extraction tool this is sufficient.

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 concise: two sentences, a return format block, and an example. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every element adds value without unnecessary embellishment.

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?

The tool is very simple (one param), has an output schema, and the description includes the return format and an example. It does not specify behavior when no JSON is found (though the format implies found=0) or handling of malformed JSON, but these are minor gaps for such a tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema fully describes the 'text' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds an example showing a typical call, reinforcing how to pass the unstructured text. While the schema alone would suffice, the example provides practical clarity, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 function: 'Extract all valid JSON objects/arrays found in unstructured text.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling JSON tools like read, write, validate, patch, and format, which operate on structured JSON files or strings.

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 usage context is implied: it is for unstructured text containing JSON blobs. An example clarifies the input, but there is no explicit mention of when to use this over other JSON tools (e.g., when JSON is embedded in logs vs. reading from a file). The context is clear enough for a simple extraction tool.

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