json-extract

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

No annotations are provided. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Pure text processing — zero external API calls.' However, it omits failure behavior, error handling, or performance characteristics, leaving gaps in transparency.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and capabilities. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides good context: return values (parsed data, cleaned string, method, repair), edge cases handled, and pure processing nature. It could specify output structure more precisely but is largely complete.

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%, so the description adds limited value beyond the schema. It contextualizes 'text' as mixed-content and mentions handling of edge cases, but doesn't significantly enhance the parameter semantics.

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 it 'Extracts and parses JSON from mixed-content text.' The verb and resource are specific, and the tool's purpose is distinct among the diverse sibling list.

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 usage when dealing with mixed text containing JSON but does not explicitly state when to use or not use it, nor mention alternatives. The context is sufficient but lacks directive guidance.

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