ISO country FR

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states nothing about side effects, return format, or whether it modifies anything. The tool could be read-only or have side effects, but the description gives no clues.

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 (one sentence), which might be considered concise, but it is too sparse to convey essential information. It lacks any structure or elaboration, making it insufficiently informative. A more balanced length would improve usefulness.

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 apparent simplicity of the tool (no output schema, few parameters), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters are used, or what the expected input format is. Without this context, an agent cannot reliably invoke 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?

The parameter descriptions are generic and appear copied from other tools (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate'). They do not explain how these parameters relate to the 'cc-fr' purpose or what inputs are actually expected. The descriptions add no meaningful context beyond the raw parameter names.

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 'Public ISO 3166-1 record for FR' gives a vague hint about country data, but does not specify what operation the tool performs (e.g., lookup, validation, retrieval) or how it relates to the provided parameters. It is not clear enough to distinguish its exact function from the sibling tools.

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 siblings. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The description provides no context for selecting this tool over alternatives like 'iana-zones' or 'validate-json'.

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 that page content is not stored, which is a useful transparency. However, it does not mention network requests, data handling, side effects, or any required authentication, leaving significant behavioral aspects 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?

The description is short and to the point, but it is under-specified. It lacks a clear structure that separates the action from parameter explanations, and the brevity reduces usefulness.

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 presence of four parameters and a potentially multi-purpose tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how 'json' and 'zone' fit into the functionality, nor does it provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke 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?

The description implicitly covers 'url' and 'host' but entirely ignores 'json' and 'zone'. The schema descriptions are minimal and do not clarify how these parameters relate to the stated purpose, leaving the parameter semantics poorly defined.

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 host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL') but omits any reference to the 'json' and 'zone' parameters, making the overall purpose unclear. It is not a tautology but lacks full specification.

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 the sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json, timezone). The description does not mention alternatives or conditions that would favor 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?

No annotations exist, and the description only mentions that identifiers are not retained. It does not disclose what actions are performed, what inputs are checked, or what output is produced.

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, containing only one sentence and no redundant information. Every word contributes to the minimal stated 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?

With no output schema and an ambiguous purpose, the description lacks essential context about return values or expected behavior. It is insufficient for an agent to determine how to invoke this 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?

Although each parameter has a brief description, none explain how url, host, json, or zone contribute to the 'compatibility' classification. The descriptions are generic and disconnected from the tool's purpose.

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?

Description states 'Show how this request is classified' but does not define what 'compatibility' means or what resource is acted upon. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like normalize-url 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as citation, normalize-url, or validate-json. The privacy note about identifiers is not a usage condition.

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 states the core behavior and what it does not include, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid hostnames, empty input, handling of leading/trailing dots) or any side effects. No annotations are provided to add clarity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and direct, with no unnecessary words or repetition. It fits in a single sentence and clearly communicates the primary action.

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 description is not complete in context because the parameter schema contains unrelated fields with mismatched descriptions. An agent cannot reliably determine which parameter to use for the hostname input, making the tool ambiguous in practice.

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 obviously mismatched: url is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', json as 'JSON text to validate', and zone as 'IANA timezone name'—none of these align with a hostname-splitting tool. The only plausible parameter, host, is described as 'Public hostname' but the others are irrelevant and confusing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: splitting a hostname into labels, and explicitly excludes WHOIS or ownership data. This differentiates it from related tools like normalize-url 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 implies a focused use case (hostname label splitting) and explicitly says it does not provide WHOIS or ownership data, but it does not give explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention prerequisites.

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 discloses none: no return format, side effects, permissions, or constraints. The statement about 'common IANA timezone names' is a claim about content, not 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 description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It consists of a single vague noun phrase that conveys no actionable information. It is not structured to front-load a clear 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description must clarify the tool's role and expected interaction. It fails entirely. The schema hints at a multi-purpose tool (normalizing URLs, validating JSON, timezone), but the description does not explain how these relate to 'clock calls' or what the tool outputs.

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% and each parameter has its own clear description (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'IANA timezone name'). Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, the tool description's lack of parameter detail is acceptable if it doesn't contradict the schema. It does not contradict, but also adds no connectivity between parameters and purpose, so the baseline of 3 stands.

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,' with no verb indicating what action the tool performs. It fails to say whether the tool returns a list, validates a zone, or does something else. The input schema includes url, host, json, and zone — none of which clearly connect to 'clock calls' except zone, leaving the purpose ambiguous. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools timezone and utc-time are presumably related, but the description gives no conditions for selecting this one over them. No exclusions or alternative mentions are provided.

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?

Lacks details on network behavior, error handling, or whether any requests are made; since no annotations exist, the description alone is insufficient.

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 padding, efficient.

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?

Missing explanation of 'group counts', input parameter usage, and output structure; the tool is under-described for effective 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 descriptions are generic and mismatched (e.g., 'cite', 'validate'), not tailored to robots.txt; tool description doesn't explain the parameters, leaving the agent confused.

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?

Clearly states the action (fetch) and resource (public robots.txt) and specifies the return value (group counts). Distinct from sibling tools like validate-json or normalize-url.

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 prefer this tool over siblings; no conditions or examples provided.

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 primary behavior (returning origin, host, path; dropping query and fragment) but does not mention edge cases, error handling, or any side effects. With no annotations, this provides moderate 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 concise, using two short sentences to convey the core functionality without 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?

The description is incomplete because it does not account for the extra parameters (host, json, zone) that appear in the schema. This mismatch suggests the description may be inaccurate or the tool has unrelated parameters, leaving the agent without a complete understanding.

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 does not explain any of the parameters (url, host, json, zone). The schema descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's purpose (e.g., host as 'Public hostname', json as 'JSON text to validate') and do not clarify how they relate to URL normalization. The description adds no value for parameter 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource (URL), and specifies the outputs (origin, host, path) and that query/fragment are dropped. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose is 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., validate-json, timezone). It does not mention any conditions or scenarios that would make it the preferred 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 must carry the full burden of explaining behavior. 'Catalog' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about how the url/host/json/zone inputs are used, whether the operation has side effects, or what output the agent should 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 tight sentence with no filler, so it is structurally concise. However, for a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the brevity reads as under-specification rather than efficient 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 only covers the subject matter of the catalog. It omits how to invoke the tool, what the returned catalog looks like, how the optional parameters affect results, and how it relates to the sibling tools, so an agent cannot confidently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has its own description (for example, JSON text is 'discarded after the check'), earning the baseline 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not connect any of the four parameters to the catalog concept.

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 the resource ('common HTTP status codes') and frames the tool as a catalog, so the general subject is clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb or action (get/list/return) and does not distinguish the tool from the sibling tools, leaving the purpose only vaguely specified.

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 status-catalog versus siblings like validate-json, normalize-url, or citation. There are no contexts, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative indicators, so an agent must guess when this tool 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 full burden of explaining behavior. It does not mention side effects (likely none), output format, error handling for invalid timezones, or any other behavioral aspects.

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 a single phrase that directly conveys the core functionality. No redundant words or unnecessary details.

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 provides no information about the return value, response format, possible errors, or how to specify the timezone beyond the parameter name. This makes it insufficient for an agent to effectively use the tool without additional context.

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 only references 'zone', but the schema includes three additional parameters (url, host, json) with descriptions unrelated to timezone. The tool description does not clarify their relevance or relation to this tool, leaving the interface confusing.

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 the current time for a given IANA timezone. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' and does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'utc-time' tool, which may serve a similar purpose for UTC.

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 like 'utc-time' or 'iana-zones'. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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, and the description is misleading. The tool name suggests time retrieval, but the input schema implies unrelated operations (URL normalization, hostname validation, JSON validation, timezone conversion). This lack of transparency makes behavior unpredictable.

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 (one sentence), which is concise, but it lacks structure and does not organize any useful information. The brevity is not an asset because the content is uninformative and confusing.

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 incomplete given the schema complexity. There is no explanation of how the four parameters relate to the tool's apparent function, no output schema, and no examples. The mismatch between the description and the schema leaves critical 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?

Although each parameter has a description, the descriptions do not align with the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' has no obvious connection to returning a UTC timestamp. The meaning of these parameters in the context of this tool is entirely unclear.

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' does not explain what the tool actually does with the provided parameters (url, host, json, zone). It is unclear whether this tool returns the current time, normalizes URLs, validates JSON, or something else entirely.

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 or how it relates to the sibling tools. The description offers no context for selecting this tool over alternatives like 'validate-json' or 'normalize-url'.

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 must carry transparency. It only mentions that the body is discarded, but it does not describe return values, error behavior, or side effects beyond discarding.

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 concise sentence and front-loads the primary purpose. It is efficient, though it omits important operational details.

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 does not explain why url, host, and zone parameters are present, what the tool returns, or how to interpret validation results. This is insufficient 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?

Most parameter descriptions are generic or copied from unrelated domains (url references normalization/citation, host is just 'Public hostname', zone is 'IANA timezone name'). Only 'json' is clearly relevant, and even that is not fully explained in the context of the tool.

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: checking whether a body is valid JSON. However, 'body' is not explicitly tied to the 'json' parameter, which introduces slight ambiguity.

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 such as normalize-url or status-catalog, and no context is given for when validation is appropriate.

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