ISO country CI

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: 'Task text discarded', and it states what the tool returns. However, it is silent on network access, authentication, potential costs, or side effects, which is a notable gap for a 'pay-per-call gateway' related tool.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then lists the returned artifacts, then gives the privacy-relevant input-handling behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero required parameters and rich schema descriptions, so an agent can invoke it with no arguments or understand that most inputs are discarded/checked. The description covers the purpose, return artifacts, and input privacy. It could be more complete by clarifying Monid and whether any network/cost side effects occur, but it is sufficient for basic correct use.

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%, and each parameter already has explicit semantics, including discard and no-disk-access notes. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema fully carries that responsibility, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and object: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)' and enumerates the returned artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This makes the tool's core function clear and distinct from the URL/status/check siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or explain what 'Monid' is.

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: use this tool when you need to locate the Monid gateway and its setup/context materials. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, and the large sibling list makes such routing guidance valuable.

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 must disclose behavioral details. It offers one useful negative disclosure ('No browser is launched'), but it does not explain what 'can be opened' means, whether a network request is made, how redirects are handled, or what side effects might occur. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, and the key negative behavior is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, even though the overall content is thin.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, 7 parameters, and a large sibling set, the description is too sparse. It does not say what the result looks like, which parameter is primary, what counts as 'ok,' or when to prefer this tool over similar URL-related siblings. The tool remains under-specified for reliable agent selection.

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 description itself mentions no parameters, but the input schema provides meaningful descriptions for all 7 parameters, including notes like 'discarded after the shape check' and 'titles discarded.' With schema coverage at 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' The additional clause 'No browser is launched' helps differentiate it from browser-based alternatives like playwright-url-ok, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or playwright-url-ok. The 'No browser is launched' line implies a lightweight check, but it leaves the selection logic entirely to the agent's inference.

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 present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does offer one behavioral hint ('Expression discarded.'), but it omits output format, side effects, permissions, failure behavior, and whether the expression is simply validated and thrown away. This is insufficient for safe/informed invocation.

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 short and front-loaded; the core verb and object appear in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds one behavioral fact. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content, though the terseness contributes to ambiguity.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, an agent needs at least a hint of which parameter to supply and what to expect back. The description provides neither, and its central term ('a+b style arithmetic') has no corresponding schema field, making correct invocation effectively impossible.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter detail. In fact, the description introduces an 'expression' concept that is not represented by any of the nine schema properties, so it provides no mapping help and slightly muddies parameter 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 names a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('a+b style arithmetic'), which suggests the operation. However, it does not clarify whether the tool returns a result or only validates syntax, and the input schema contains no parameter that carries an arithmetic expression, so the stated purpose is disconnected from invocable inputs.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, what condition selects it, or which sibling tool would be the alternative. The only implicit usage signal is the verb 'Evaluate', which is not enough guidance among 27 sibling tools.

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, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly discloses the output fields and adds a meaningful non-storage guarantee: 'Page content is not stored.' It does not cover redirects, errors, or authentication, but for a read-only URL metadata tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two short sentences. The primary function is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable behavioral note without wasting words. Every element earns its place.

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 URL metadata tool, the return values are stated and the schema documents all parameters. However, with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description could better clarify how those parameters relate to the tool's purpose or when to prefer sibling tools. It is adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema provides a description for all 9 parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds little beyond identifying 'URL' as the core input, but it does not need to repeat the schema's parameter details. It fails to clarify how the many optional parameters relate to the primary use case, keeping this at the baseline.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It also adds a distinguishing behavioral note, 'Page content is not stored,' which separates it from content-fetching or storage-oriented tools. This is clear and unambiguous.

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: call it when you need host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Guidance is present by implication only.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful privacy behavior — 'No identifiers are retained' — and the schema descriptions reinforce that several inputs are discarded. However, it does not say whether the tool performs network calls, whether it is read-only, or what it returns, so transparency is partial.

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 compact: two short sentences with no filler. The central action is front-loaded and the privacy statement earns its place, though the extreme brevity leaves the classification behavior under-specified.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully inform an agent. It does not describe possible classifications, output format, or relationship to sibling tools, so an agent would likely need to probe the tool to understand how to use it 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 provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, achieving 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries parameter semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning that identifiers are not retained, which keeps this at the baseline 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 states a verb and object — 'Show how this request is classified' — but the classification categories, criteria, and relation to the tool name 'compatibility' are left undefined. This makes the purpose recognizable but vague, and it does not distinguish the tool from sibling shape-classification tools like domain-shape or validate-json.

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 offers no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as figma-url-shape, github-repo-shape, or normalize-url. It only says it shows classification and retains no identifiers, which is a behavioral note, not usage guidance.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is not an ownership/WHOIS lookup, but it does not state the return format, error behavior, or that the other schema parameters are irrelevant. This is adequate but not rich.

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 no filler. Every word adds information: the action, the resource, and an important limitation.

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 appears simple, but the schema exposes nine optional parameters and no output schema; the description only addresses the hostname case. It is sufficient to select the tool, but leaves ambiguity about whether other parameters are accepted/ignored and what exactly is returned.

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 each parameter. The description adds the key clue that 'host' should be the subject of the splitting operation, but it does not clarify the role of the eight other optional fields or which one is required.

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 names a specific action (split) and resource (hostname), and adds a clear boundary ('without WHOIS or ownership data') that distinguishes it from lookup-oriented sibling tools. This is enough for an agent to know what the tool 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?

It gives a clear context: use this for syntactic hostname splitting rather than ownership lookups. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5, but the intended use is clearly implied.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate the core behavior: a HEAD request, no body retrieval, and status-only output. However, it does not disclose redirect handling, timeout or error behavior, or that the many optional schema parameters are effectively ignored, leaving meaningful ambiguity for an agent.

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 one front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action, the target, and the return scope immediately and efficiently. It earns every word.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of the extra parameters, whether they are ignored, what the status response looks like, or edge-case behavior. An agent can probably call it correctly with only `url`, but the definition leaves avoidable 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the key semantic that `url` is the target of a HEAD request, but it does not clarify whether or how the other eight parameters are used or ignored. The url parameter's own schema description ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') is also inconsistent with the HEAD semantics, so the description only partially compensates.

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 names a specific HTTP method (HEAD), a resource scope (public URL), and an explicit output (status only). This clearly distinguishes it from content-fetching or rendering tools like web-fetch, browser-url-ok, and playwright-url-ok. The single sentence is unambiguous about what the tool 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?

The phrase 'HEAD a public URL and return status only' gives a clear usage context: use it when you need a lightweight status check and not page content. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar, but the context is clear enough 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?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool parses and that 'Path discarded'; it does not say whether it fetches the URL, what shape validation means, what it returns, or how invalid input is handled.

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 short and front-loads the main action in the first sentence. The second sentence is a bare fragment that is economical but ambiguous, so it is not quite a perfect 5.

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?

With nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too thin. It does not identify which parameter to pass, what result to expect, or why the schema contains unrelated fields like city, feed, json, zone, and query.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter guidance beyond the schema, and 'Path discarded' may confuse agents about whether it refers to the URL path or the 'path' parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools for GitHub, Jira, and domains. However, 'Path discarded' is ambiguous about whether the URL path or the path parameter is dropped, and 'shape' vs 'parse' is a slight mismatch with the tool name.

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?

Use is implied for Figma file URLs, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the many URL-related siblings such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. No exclusions or alternatives are 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'No disk access' is a useful disclosure that this is a purely syntactic, non-invasive check, but it does not describe the return value, error behavior, or what specific path patterns are considered safe.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded with the verb 'Check', and the important safety qualifier 'No disk access' is stated separately and clearly.

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?

This is a minimal but viable description for a simple validator: the agent knows it is a path-safety check with no disk I/O. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what a positive or negative result looks like, and the input schema contains many unrelated parameters, so an agent could still be uncertain how to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, and it does not clarify how the path should be formatted or which of the nine schema properties is intended for the path check beyond the obvious 'path' field.

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 specific action and resource: checking whether a path 'looks safe' and explicitly says there is no disk access. This separates it from URL-focused and network-focused siblings such as normalize-url, fetch-status, and browser-url-ok, though it does not define what 'safe' means.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like wiki-title-ok, jira-key-shape, or domain-shape. The description gives no selection criteria, no exclusions, and no context about which sibling tools perform related but different checks.

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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output concept and provider; it does not mention that many inputs are discarded, whether the lookup is safe/read-only, or what error behavior to expect.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and it names the data source. It is concise, though perhaps too sparse to fully compensate for the large optional parameter surface.

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?

This tool has nine optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, yet the description gives no indication of which parameter should be supplied or what the return value looks like. The description is far from sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 provides descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning; it says 'a place' without mapping that concept to any specific field such as city or query.

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 communicates the core idea—returning latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo—and the provider name helps distinguish it from weather-focused siblings. However, it lacks a direct verb like 'resolve' or 'look up,' and no schema parameter is clearly identified as the place input.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use geo-hint versus related tools such as weather-hint or timezone. With nine optional parameters and none required, the agent receives no hint about which input to provide.

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, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the core behavior—extracting owner/repo from a GitHub URL—but does not mention invalid/non-GitHub URL handling, return shape, or the fact that other optional parameters are ignored. This is acceptable for a simple parse tool but leaves edge cases undisclosed.

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?

One sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the verb and target. It is as short as possible while still conveying 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?

The core invocation is clear: pass a GitHub URL to get owner/repo. The schema explains that unrelated fields are discarded, and 'owner and repo' names the expected outputs, so this is adequate for a simple shape tool despite not having an output schema.

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 covers all parameters with per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only mentions `url` and adds no semantic detail about other parameters, but the schema already documents them.

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 a specific verb ('Parse') and names the exact resource and outputs ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling shape tools like figma-url-shape or jira-key-shape, which target different URL formats.

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 about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as normalize-url or the other *-shape tools. The condition is implied by 'from a GitHub URL,' but the description never names an alternative or states when not to use it.

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 bears the full disclosure burden, yet it only discloses that 'titles are discarded'. It does not explain the return value, whether a live fetch occurs, failure modes, or why the schema exposes nine unrelated parameters (city, zone, json, path, ref, query) that the description never ties to the Hacker News count.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded make this efficient and easy to parse. The standalone 'Titles discarded' sentence is abrupt rather than structured, but no words are wasted.

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 nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified: the return format, which parameter to pass, and whether the operation is live or offline. An agent cannot confidently construct the correct invocation from this description alone.

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 the baseline is 3 and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It never tells the agent which of the nine optional parameters is relevant to the HN count; only the feed parameter's 'titles discarded' line hints at a connection to the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories' — which clearly states what the tool does. It is distinguishable from siblings like web-fetch, but the description never explicitly positions it against those alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings such as web-fetch, fetch-status, or normalize-url. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions stated, so an agent must guess whether this or a fetch tool is the right choice for Hacker News data.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the apparent content (common IANA timezone names) but does not disclose the return format, whether it is a static list, whether inputs are ignored, or any side effects. The schema's parameter descriptions hint at discarding and validation behavior, but the description does not connect these to the tool's actual behavior.

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 text is short, but it is under-specified to the point of being a caption rather than a tool description. It lacks any structure that front-loads actionable information, and it does not earn its place because it fails to communicate operation, parameters, or output.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description alone must make the tool safely callable. It does not describe return values, invocation pattern, or the role of any of the 9 input parameters. The mismatch between the timezone-oriented description and the generic validation-oriented schema makes the tool substantially incomplete for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, which normally sets a baseline of 3, but the description adds no meaning tying the parameters to the tool's purpose. The parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) are entirely unrelated to IANA timezone names, and the description does not explain whether they are ignored, required for some filtering, or belong to a different tool contract. This leaves an agent unable to decide which parameter to use.

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 is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It mostly restates the tool name 'iana-zones' and leaves unclear whether the tool lists, validates, returns, or filters these names. It also does nothing to distinguish this tool from clock-related siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'.

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 only usage signal is 'for clock calls', which vaguely suggests a relationship to clock/timezone operations. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no explanation of how the many unrelated input parameters should be handled.

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 the key behavior: fetching a public resource and returning only group counts. However, it omits error behavior, redirect handling, rate limits, and what 'group counts' means.

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 nine words, front-loaded, and contains no filler. It is slightly under-sized for a 9-parameter schema, but as prose it is appropriately efficient and direct.

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?

With no annotations or output schema and nine optional-looking decoy parameters, the definition does not tell the agent enough to invoke the tool reliably. Missing critical information includes which parameter actually selects the robots.txt and what the returned counts look like.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, none of them relates to robots.txt: they mention ref shape checks, weather hints, RSS titles, JSON validation, and timezone names. The description does not say which parameter supplies the target URL or host, so the agent cannot confidently map the call.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (public robots.txt), and output scope (group counts only), which clearly separates it from generic fetchers like web-fetch. The phrase 'group counts only' gives the agent a precise expectation of what the tool returns.

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?

Gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools such as web-fetch or fetch-status. The only context is the bare phrase 'Fetch a public robots.txt', which implies a use case but does not help choose among the many siblings.

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 phrase 'Key discarded' discloses that the input key is not retained, implying a stateless, read-only validation. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden; it does not mention return values, failure modes, or any side effects, but the ephemeral-input disclosure is genuinely useful.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose, the second adds a behavioral guarantee. The structure is front-loaded and every word earns its place, even though the content is insufficient in other dimensions.

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 definition is too sparse for a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a confusing nine-parameter schema. It fails to specify which parameter carries the Jira key, what the expected key format is, what the tool returns, or how this shape check relates to sibling validators. The minimal two-sentence description leaves essential invocation details unresolved.

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 documents nine parameters with full coverage, but none of them is a Jira key or anything resembling one. The description's only parameter-related statement, 'Key discarded,' references a key that does not exist in the schema, so an agent cannot determine which property to populate. This is a serious disconnect between the tool's described purpose and its actual input 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 specific action and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This clearly identifies the tool's domain and distinguishes it from sibling shape-checkers like github-repo-shape or figma-url-shape. It loses the fifth point because 'shape' is left undefined and the input schema contains no 'key' parameter, creating ambiguity about what is actually checked.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs to validate a Jira issue key's format, which is enough to vaguely route selection among shape-related siblings. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisite or context such as 'use this before creating/looking up a Jira issue.'

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 one useful behavior: the response body is discarded, so only the HTTP status is meaningful. With no annotations present, however, it does not address redirect handling, timeouts, read-only behavior, or response format, leaving much of the behavioral burden uncovered.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the main purpose before the body-discard behavior. Every word contributes, though the extreme brevity comes at the cost of contextual 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?

With nine optional parameters, no required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool reliably. It does not say which parameters to populate, what the exact return format is, or how this tool relates to its many HTTP/URL-focused siblings.

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%, and the schema already describes each of the nine optional parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. But the description adds no parameter-level meaning, and its 'public library docs URL' phrasing does not map cleanly onto the schema's url parameter.

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 concrete output ('HTTP status') and a recognizable target input ('a public library docs URL'), so the core purpose is identifiable. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an action, and it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch, which also deal with HTTP statuses.

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 over fetch-status, browser-url-ok, web-fetch, or other sibling tools. There are no conditions, exclusions, or explicit alternative routing, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name and skeletal description.

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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one important trait: values are discarded, meaning inputs are not retained or used for computation beyond key counting. However, it does not mention output format, error handling, or whether nested keys are counted, which leaves notable gaps.

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 two short sentences with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the primary purpose and then gives the most relevant behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and many optional parameters, the description is somewhat incomplete. It doesn't state the return format, whether only top-level keys are counted, or how the JSON object is expected to be provided. However, the schema and the simple behavior make the core task reasonably inferable.

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 already provides descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool-level description adds meaningful unifying semantics: all parameter values are ignored and only key presence matters, which helps the agent infer that the parameters themselves are the keys to count. This goes beyond what the individual schema descriptions communicate.

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 operation: counting keys in a JSON object, and adds the behavioral note that values are discarded. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate-json, which validate rather than count. It is slightly underspecified about how the JSON object should be supplied or which input property to use.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when a count of keys in a JSON object is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of alternatives, and no clarification about which of the many optional input properties are 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It is transparent about the core transformation: query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not disclose how invalid URLs are handled, whether only the `url` parameter is used, or what happens when other schema fields are provided.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by the key exclusion. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant restating of the tool name.

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 adequate for a pure URL-normalization tool, but the schema exposes nine optional parameters, many seemingly unrelated, and there is no output schema or return-shape statement. It would be more complete if it said "only `url` is used" or described the returned format.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful context that query and fragment are dropped, but it does not clarify the roles of the other eight parameters or explicitly state that `url` is the primary input.

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 specific action—"Return origin, host, and path for a URL"—and adds the meaningful behavior that query and fragment are dropped. It clearly distinguishes this from fetching, checking, or validating a URL, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling URL/shape tools. It does not state when not to use it, mention prerequisites, or point to an alternative such as browser-url-ok or web-fetch for cases requiring full page access.

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 were provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses one useful behavioral trait (no browser launch) but leaves open whether a network request occurs, what 'opened' means, and whether side effects exist. This is a partial but not comprehensive disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, with the main action first and the critical caveat second. There is no filler, and the caveat is necessary because the tool name mentions playwright, which might otherwise imply a browser launch.

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 eight parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a crowded sibling set, the description is too thin. It never specifies what a successful 'ok' looks like, which parameters are actually checked, or how this relates to fetch-status or web-fetch. The schema anchors some meaning, but the tool description alone is insufficient 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?

The input schema already describes all eight parameters individually, so schema coverage is high. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, but with high coverage the baseline is 3. It does not mislead or add unnecessary details.

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 operation ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a disambiguating caveat ('No browser is launched') that separates it from browser-launching siblings like browser-url-ok. However, 'opened' is undefined (HTTP reachability vs renderability), so it is not fully specific.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The 'No browser is launched' sentence implies a lighter-weight check than browser-url-ok, but there is no direct comparison or exclusion. The agent must infer when to select this tool over siblings.

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 provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait: 'Query discarded.' However, it does not explain that the other accepted parameters appear to be ignored or discarded, what the tool returns, or whether the length count is based on characters, code points, or bytes. The 9-parameter schema makes this lack of transparency significant.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler words. Both sentences earn their place. However, it is not fully 'appropriately sized' for a tool with nine parameters and an ambiguous schema, so it does not merit a 5.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, plus a 9-parameter optional-input schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not identify which parameter should be provided, does not state that the other parameters are irrelevant or discarded, and does not describe the return value. An agent could easily pass the wrong fields or call with no fields at all.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds little beyond naming 'a search query' and saying the query is discarded, which does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Count characters in a search query.' This makes the core action clear and aligns with the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling count/length tools such as memory-key-count or hn-front-count, and it does not clarify that the relevant input is the `query` parameter among nine unrelated-looking fields.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or conditions. With zero required parameters and eight sibling tools, the agent gets no help choosing this tool or knowing what should be filled in. This is essentially no usage guidance beyond the bare purpose.

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 not disclose whether the catalog is static or fetched, whether any parameters affect the result, what the return format is, or that parameters are discarded. The schema's 'discarded' notes are not part of the tool description.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the core resource is front-loaded. It is concise to a fault, but that is primarily a completeness problem, not a conciseness or structure problem.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and nine optional parameters, an agent cannot tell whether to pass anything, what output to expect, or how any parameter changes the returned catalog. The description is incomplete for reliable 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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3, but the parameter descriptions refer to unrelated concepts such as Git refs, URLs, cities, feeds, JSON, paths, zones, and queries. None of them accepts an HTTP status code, and the description adds no mapping between these parameters and the catalog, leaving invocation ambiguous.

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 names a clear resource ('common HTTP status codes') and suggests the tool returns a short catalog, so an agent can roughly infer the basic function. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, and it does not explain how the nine input parameters relate to that catalog or distinguish it from siblings like fetch-status.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. With sibling tools like fetch-status, normalize-url, and validate-json present, an agent receives no help deciding whether status-catalog is the right choice.

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 burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal a key behavioral trait: the prompt is discarded and a fixed template is returned, which prevents the agent from expecting custom reasoning output. However, it does not explain how the nine unrelated optional parameters are treated or whether there are any side effects, so transparency is only partial.

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 short: two sentences, with the main action front-loaded and the discard behavior appended. Every sentence contributes something meaningful. It errs toward terseness rather than verbosity, which is appropriate for a simple tool, though slightly too sparse given the complex schema.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain why the schema contains parameters for URLs, cities, feeds, hosts, JSON, and paths, or whether they should be populated at all. The agent is left to guess whether invoking with no arguments is acceptable or whether some parameter is expected.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents each parameter individually. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable because the schema carries that weight. Still, the description does not help the agent understand that all parameters appear unrelated to the template and may be unnecessary.

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 action and output: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is more specific than a tautology and distinguishes the tool from the sibling validators and fetchers, though it does not explicitly name any sibling. The second sentence, 'Prompt discarded,' adds important scope to what the tool does not do.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools or when not to use it. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' implies it is not for processing user input, but it never states a condition or alternative. An agent receives no help deciding whether think-steps is appropriate for a given task.

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 behavioral disclosure burden, yet it only says 'Current time' and adds no details about output format, error handling, or side effects. It does not even indicate which input parameter should receive the IANA timezone.

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 short and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits the invocation-critical mapping of the IANA timezone to a schema parameter.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only guidance for inputs, behavior, and return values. It fails to identify the required timezone input and provides no clue about the returned time format or error cases, so the agent cannot reliably call this 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 schema description coverage is 100%, the schema contains only unrelated parameters such as ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path, with none describing an IANA timezone. The description mentions a timezone concept but never maps it to any schema property, making correct invocation impossible from the provided information.

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 action and resource: it returns the current time for a named IANA timezone. This distinguishes it from siblings like utc-time and iana-zones. However, it does not explain how to specify the timezone or what the response looks like.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred use cases, leaving the agent to infer the intended scenario.

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 burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Current UTC timestamp,' so it does not reveal that the many input properties appear to be ignored/discarded, that there are no side effects, or that no external calls are made. The schema property notes hint at discarding, but the tool description itself doesn't.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. One noun phrase cannot carry the necessary context for a tool whose schema exposes seven unrelated optional 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 return format or parameter handling. For a tool with this many schema properties, the description is far from complete enough to guide 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?

The schema provides descriptions for all seven properties, but those descriptions are unrelated to UTC time and could mislead an agent. The tool description adds no clarification that these parameters are irrelevant or optional, so it fails to add meaning 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 names a clear resource—the current UTC timestamp—and is not a tautology. However, it lacks a verb and does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like timezone, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer utc-time over timezone or other sibling tools, and no mention of whether parameters are needed. The agent must infer usage entirely from the bare description.

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 provided, the description carries the disclosure burden; it does add one useful behavioral detail: the body is discarded. It does not say what happens for invalid JSON, whether the check is syntax-only or schema-based, or what the tool returns, leaving significant 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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the discard behavior as a meaningful second clause. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits what the return value is, which parameter carries the JSON, and why the other eight fields exist. An agent cannot confidently determine invocation behavior from this definition alone.

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 describes all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3 even without additional explanation in the description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and the term 'body' does not map cleanly to any schema property; the closest is 'json', described as 'JSON text to validate'.

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 specific action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and a distinct resource, JSON, which helps separate it from sibling URL/file/domain validators. However, it refers to 'a body' while the schema exposes an optional 'json' string plus eight other optional fields, so the exact subject is not fully pinned down.

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 sibling validators such as browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or wiki-title-ok. The description only implies a JSON-validation use case and provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions.

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 behavioral disclosure, yet it only names the data source (Open-Meteo). It does not reveal that most schema parameters are accepted and then discarded after a shape check — information that appears in the schema but not the description — nor whether a live network call occurs or what failure modes exist. 'Via Open-Meteo' hints at an external dependency but leaves the tool's discard-and-hint behavior invisible.

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 nine-word sentence is efficient and front-loads the function. It errs toward under-specification rather than conciseness, omitting the parameter maze and the discard behavior that an agent must understand before calling.

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?

Despite nine schema parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 27 siblings, the description offers only one clause. It fails to tell the agent which parameter to populate, that the other parameters are ignored, or the form of the returned temperature. This is materially incomplete for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds nothing about the parameters beyond implicitly pointing to 'city' as the operative one. It doesn't clarify that the remaining eight parameters are accepted but irrelevant, which an agent cannot deduce from the description alone. The city parameter's meaning is already fully documented in 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?

States a concrete function — returning the current temperature for a city — and names the data source (Open-Meteo), which also separates it from sibling hint tools like geo-hint or lib-docs-hint. However, it doesn't acknowledge that the schema accepts eight other parameters (ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query), leaving the tool's actual scope 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 on when to use this tool rather than one of 27 siblings, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is 'need the current temperature for a city,' with nothing distinguishing it from geo-hint or explaining when not to call it. An agent must infer the calling condition entirely.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully state that the body is discarded, but it does not explain how the other eight parameters behave, whether there are side effects, what the return format is, or any failure/limit behavior. The schema descriptions mention 'discarded' for several params, but the tool-level description remains opaque for most inputs.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main outcome is front-loaded, and 'Body discarded' is a meaningful behavioral note. Every word earns its place.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection or invocation. It covers only the URL path and leaves the purpose of the other parameters unclear. The schema descriptions help individually, but the tool-level behavior remains underspecified.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'public URL' and 'Body discarded'. It does not clarify how city, feed, json, path, zone, or query relate to fetching a URL, so it neither compensates for nor deepens 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 tool returns HTTP status and content type for a public URL, with the body discarded. This is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like fetch-status, and it ignores the broader set of parameters in the schema, so it is clear but incomplete.

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 such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. The only implicit hint is 'public URL', which sets a scope but provides no exclusions or selection criteria. An agent would have to infer the intended use case.

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 behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the title is discarded after the call, which is useful statelessness information. But it does not clarify what 'exists' means, whether network or rate-limit behavior applies, or why the schema exposes several unrelated fields.

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?

Two short sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the lifetime note compactly placed in the second sentence. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 existence check, the description omits how to supply the title, since no schema parameter matches 'title'. It also does not describe the return value or success/failure semantics, and there is no output schema to compensate. The definition is not complete enough for an agent to call it 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 schema has descriptions for all seven parameters, so the schema coverage baseline would be 3. However, the description's core input, the Wikipedia title, is not mapped to any schema property, and most schema descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL to normalize') are unrelated to the stated purpose. This mismatch outweighs the high schema coverage.

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 first sentence names a specific action and resource ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists'), and it is not a pure tautology of the tool name. However, the description then refers to a 'Title' input while the schema contains no title parameter at all (only ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path), which weakens the clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or domain-shape. No explicit alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are given, leaving tool selection entirely to inference.

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