format_json

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

The description adds context through an example showing the transformation, but it does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the annotations. With readOnlyHint=false, the description could clarify that the tool is a pure transformation without side effects, which it omits.

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 extremely concise with one sentence and an example, no unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks information about error handling (e.g., invalid JSON input) and does not specify the return format beyond the example.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description adds minimal value. It implicitly hints at the 'indent' parameter via 'customizable spacing' and the example, but does not explicitly explain it beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Format and prettify' and the resource 'JSON', with an example showing input/output. It distinguishes the tool from similar ones like minify_json or convert_json_to_csv by its formatting purpose, though not explicitly differentiating from siblings like format_css or format_html.

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 (e.g., minify_json, validate_json, or other format tools). It does not specify prerequisites, input validity, or situations where this tool is preferred.

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