Byte count, text discarded

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

The description provides no information about side effects, required permissions, or operational behavior. Annotations are absent, so no context is added.

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 terse but fails to convey essential information. Conciseness without clarity is not effective.

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?

There is no output schema, no elaboration of behavior, and no contextual information. The description is wholly inadequate for an agent to understand the tool.

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?

Although the schema covers all parameters, the descriptions are generic and irrelevant to the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' has no clear connection to 'byte count').

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 'Byte count, text discarded' does not state a clear verb or resource. It is ambiguous and does not indicate what the tool actually does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and the relationship to sibling tools is not mentioned.

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

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

The description includes one transparency note: 'Page content is not stored.' This discloses a relevant side effect. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as network requests, potential errors, or data handling beyond the storage note.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy or extraneous information. It efficiently communicates the core function.

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 description is minimal and leaves several gaps: it does not explain how the parameters (host, json, zone) relate to the URL-focused purpose, does not specify the output format, and provides no usage context. Given the complexity of the parameter set and the presence of sibling tools, the description is insufficient for an agent to determine correct usage.

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 schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is retained. The parameter descriptions themselves appear mismatched with the stated purpose, but that is not a failure of the tool description.

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 states a clear purpose: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is a specific verb and object. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog, which could overlap in functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description offers no criteria for choosing 'citation' over sibling tools, leaving the decision entirely to the agent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait ('No identifiers are retained'), which is useful for privacy, but it does not disclose the output format, side effects, or any restrictions. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 only one sentence and lacks substance. This is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits essential details that an agent needs, so the brevity is not a strength.

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, no annotations, and a vague description, the definition is highly incomplete. The agent cannot determine what 'classification' means, what the response looks like, or how the parameters interact. This is inadequate for a tool with four optional parameters.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (url, host, json, zone). The description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters are used or related. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers everything, even though the description contributes nothing 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 states a verb ('show') and a resource ('how this request is classified'), but 'classification' is vague and undefined. It doesn't say what kind of classification, what criteria, or what the output looks like. With sibling tools like normalize-url, validate-json, and timezone, there is no indication of how this tool differs, making it hard for an agent to select it correctly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description leaves the agent to guess whether this is for compatibility checks, browser support, or something else.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and behavior. The phrase 'without WHOIS or data' is ambiguous and does not clearly state whether the operation is read-only or what exactly is excluded. No side effects or limitations are mentioned.

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 a single sentence, which is concise in length. However, the trailing 'without WHOIS or data' is awkward and undermines clarity. It could be improved with proper structure, but it is not verbose.

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 the mismatch between the tool purpose and its parameters, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the operation, what 'labels' means, or what the output format is. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the provided information.

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 schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, but they are completely mismatched with the tool's stated purpose. 'url' is described for normalization/citation, 'json' for validation, and 'zone' for timezone, none of which relate to splitting hostnames. The tool description adds no clarification and actually increases confusion.

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 verb 'Split' and resource 'hostname into labels' clearly state the primary action and target. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url, though the action is distinct enough on its own.

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. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or contrast with any sibling tool, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it does with the inputs, whether it returns a list or performs an action, or any side effects. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a purpose but not the behavior. This is critically insufficient for a tool with four parameters and no output schema.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the key phrase 'IANA timezone names' and is appropriately short. However, its brevity sacrifices meaningful content, though conciseness itself is well executed.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the overall operation, the relationship between parameters, expected return value, or any constraints. An agent would not know how to call this tool correctly, making it effectively non-usable.

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 100%, so each parameter (url, host, json, zone) has a clear individual description. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, and its reference to 'IANA timezone names' only loosely connects to the 'zone' parameter. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not contradict the schema but also does not enhance understanding.

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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' suggests a static list of timezone names, but the input schema contains parameters for URL, host, JSON, and zone, implying a different operation (e.g., normalization, validation). The purpose is vague and does not state a clear action or resource. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone or utc-time, which likely also relate to timezones.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like timezone, normalize-url, or validate-json. The description gives zero contextual usage information.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'fetch' and 'return group counts,' with no mention of error handling, missing robots.txt, network failures, rate limits, or whether any side effects occur.

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 main description is a single, tight sentence that wastes no words. However, the parameter block is cluttered with irrelevant descriptions, which slightly harms overall structural clarity.

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 not complete enough to use correctly. There is no output schema, yet 'group counts' format is not described. More importantly, the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) have no obvious relationship to the stated purpose, leaving the agent unable to determine how to invoke the tool meaningfully.

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 parameter descriptions are actively misleading. 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' 'json' as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check,' and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name'—none of these align with fetching a robots.txt file. Only 'host' vaguely relates, but its purpose is not explained.

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 a specific action ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and a precise result ('return group counts only'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous even among unrelated siblings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, status-catalog, or validate-json. The description implies use when robots.txt group counts are needed, but it never states conditions, exclusions, or comparisons.

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

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

The description discloses the main behavior—returning origin, host, and path while dropping query and fragment—but it does not explain how the host, json, and zone parameters are handled or whether they are ignored. This leaves important behavioral ambiguity.

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 and directly states the core function in a single sentence. No unnecessary words or redundant details are included.

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 has a simple core function, but the presence of unrelated parameters and the lack of guidance on their usage make the description incomplete. An agent would likely be confused about what parameters to provide.

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 parameter descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose. The json parameter is described as 'JSON text to validate' and zone as 'IANA timezone name', which are clearly unrelated to URL normalization. The description adds no useful clarification for these 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 clearly states the tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL and that query and fragment are dropped. However, the input schema contains unrelated parameters like json and zone, which muddles the purpose.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timezone or validate-json. It only describes the operation, not the appropriate context or selection criteria.

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

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

There are no annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or modifies data, leaving the agent without information about consequences.

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 short, which is concise, but it omits essential information. The single sentence does not effectively communicate the tool's function, making brevity counterproductive. A more informative description would justify a higher score.

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 the mismatch between the description and the parameters, the tool is contextually incomplete. The agent cannot determine how to invoke it correctly or what output to expect. The description fails to provide a coherent overview of the tool's role within its sibling set.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate') do not align with the stated purpose of providing HTTP status codes. The description adds no clarification, and the mismatch makes it impossible to infer how parameters should be used.

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 states it is a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which indicates a purpose, but it lacks a clear verb or explanation of how it relates to the provided parameters (url, host, json, zone). It is more of a noun phrase than a functional description, leaving the tool's actual operation ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions or scenarios for invocation, nor does it reference sibling tools like validate-json or utc-time that might be relevant.

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

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

There are no annotations to clarify behavior or side effects. The description only says 'current time' without specifying the output format, whether it returns a string or structured data, or whether the extra parameters (url, host, json) are ignored. The presence of irrelevant parameters adds confusion rather than 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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient and easy to read. It is not overly verbose, but it omits crucial details about parameters and return behavior, so it is slightly too terse for the complexity introduced by the extra parameters.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of the return format. The presence of three unexplained and irrelevant parameters makes the tool contextually incomplete, as an agent cannot infer how to use it correctly or what to expect from the call.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but three of them (url, host, json) are unrelated to timezone functionality, suggesting they may be remnants from another tool. The zone parameter is well-described as 'IANA timezone name', but the descriptions for the other parameters do not align with the tool's purpose, making the semantics misleading.

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 states the tool returns the current time in a named IANA timezone, which is specific and includes the resource (timezone). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'utc-time' which also provides current time, leaving ambiguity about when this one is preferred.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'utc-time' or 'iana-zones'. The description implies it is for a specific timezone, but does not state that utc-time is for UTC-only or that this tool should be chosen when a non-UTC zone is needed.

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

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

There are no annotations and no description of side effects, return format, error behavior, or how the provided parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to the stated purpose. The behavior is opaque.

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 short and contains no fluff, but it is not appropriately sized because it omits essential information about parameters and behavior. It is concise in word count but not in explanatory completeness.

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 description is grossly incomplete given the four parameters and the absence of an output schema. It does not explain the return value, how inputs affect the output, or any contextual constraints. The parameter mismatch further undermines completeness.

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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'Public hostname', 'JSON text to validate', 'IANA timezone name') are entirely inconsistent with the stated purpose of returning a UTC timestamp. This creates strong confusion rather than clarifying usage.

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 'Current UTC timestamp' indicates the tool returns the current UTC time, but it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb-driven statement. It does not sufficiently distinguish this tool from siblings like 'timezone' or 'validate-json' given the unrelated parameter names.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate use cases, limitations, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool.

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

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

The description mentions that 'The body is discarded', which gives a partial behavioral hint, but it does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, an error message), whether it has side effects beyond discarding the body, or if it is read-only. With no annotations, this lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity.

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, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the core function and a key behavioral note. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 description lacks essential context: it does not explain what constitutes a 'body', how the tool integrates with the other parameters (url, host, zone), or what the expected output format is. Given the sibling tools, the description does not sufficiently situate this tool within a broader workflow, leaving the agent with incomplete information for correct invocation.

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?

While the schema provides descriptions for all parameters, many are irrelevant to the tool's purpose (e.g., url, host, zone). The only relevant parameter 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate', but the tool description does not elaborate on how it relates to the other parameters or the 'body' concept. The description adds minimal clarity 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 'Check' and the object 'whether a body is valid JSON', which precisely defines the tool's purpose. It is unambiguous and easily distinguishable from the sibling tools that handle URLs, timezones, or other data transformations.

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, nor any prerequisites or conditions. It simply states the action without any usage context, leaving the agent to infer appropriate invocation scenarios.

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