ISO country IN

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention any side effects, read-only guarantees, or potential impacts. The term 'Public' hints at data availability but does not disclose whether the tool performs writes, requires authentication, or has rate limits.

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, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is concise in length yet fails to convey the essential purpose or usage, making it more cryptic than 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a one-line description, the tool is severely under-specified. There is no information about return values, error conditions, or how the four parameters interact, making it impossible to use correctly without external knowledge.

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 descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate') are generic and appear mismatched with the tool's stated purpose of an ISO 3166-1 record. While each parameter has a description, they do not coherently relate to the tool's function, leaving the agent confused about what inputs are actually 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 'Public ISO 3166-1 record for IN' states what the tool represents but not what it does (e.g., no verb indicating an action). It is unclear whether it returns a record, validates one, or performs another operation, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'iana-zones' 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The description provides no context about typical use cases or conditions under which this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without any selection criteria.

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

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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only beyond this note.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, using two short sentences with no superfluous words.

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: the tool name 'citation' is unexplained, the parameters seem mismatched, and there is no output schema or clear relationship to sibling tools. The reader is left confused about the actual purpose and usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The parameters (url, host, json, zone) do not align with the described purpose of returning host, scheme, and HTTP status. The schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'JSON text to validate') and do not explain their relevance to citation or to the stated functionality.

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) with a clear resource, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog, which may have overlapping purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional note ('Page content is not stored') is a behavioral statement, not usage direction.

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 only mentions that identifiers are not retained, which is a privacy note, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what happens to the input data. This is insufficient for a tool that accepts multiple types of 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 concise at two sentences, but the first sentence is vague and the second is a side note. It is not poorly structured, but it lacks substance. It earns a middle score for brevity, but the content is too thin to be considered well-crafted.

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 tool has four optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must provide enough context for an agent to understand its purpose and usage. It fails completely: it does not explain what classification means, what output to expect, or how to use the parameters. This is a critical gap.

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 four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how the parameters relate to classification or how they should be used together. It neither clarifies nor conflicts with the schema, so a baseline score 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 verb ('show') and a resource ('how this request is classified'), but the meaning of 'classified' is entirely opaque. It does not specify what classification categories exist, what the output looks like, or how it relates to the tool name 'compatibility'. It also fails to distinguish itself from siblings like validate-json or normalize-url, which appear to handle similar input types.

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 any alternative. No context, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. An agent would have to guess whether to call this for URL normalization, JSON validation, timezone checking, or something else 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool operates 'without WHOIS or ownership data', which implies a read-only parsing behavior, but it does not state whether the tool has side effects, what it returns, or how it handles multiple parameters. The description is silent on behavior beyond the single operation.

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, compact sentence that is easy to parse, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters. It is concise without being informative, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.

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 tool has four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the url, json, and zone parameters, does not describe return values, and gives no guidance on edge cases or parameter interactions. An agent cannot safely call this tool based on the 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but the tool description adds nothing about them and actually creates confusion. The description only mentions hostname splitting, while the schema accepts url, json, and zone, which seem unrelated. This disconnect means the description fails to add meaningful context beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Split') and resource ('hostname into labels'), which is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like normalize-url or validate-json that perform different operations. However, it ignores the other three parameters (url, json, zone) which the schema accepts, so the purpose is only partially conveyed.

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. No mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot tell whether this should be used for URL normalization, JSON validation, or timezone handling given the broad schema, and no sibling references 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?

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, or output behavior. The parameter descriptions (e.g., 'JSON text to validate') imply behaviors entirely unrelated to timezone names, adding confusion rather than transparency.

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

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

The description is brief and not verbose, but it lacks a proper verb phrase or structured purpose statement. It reads as a fragment rather than a clear tool definition.

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 omits essential context: expected output format, whether it accepts input or returns a static list, and how it relates to sibling timezone tools. The mismatched parameters further reduce completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema describes all four parameters, the descriptions for url, host, and json are clearly copied from unrelated tools (normalize-url, validate-json) and contradict the tool's stated purpose. Only 'zone' matches the timezone theme, leaving the schema misleading.

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

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

The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase suggesting a list of timezone names, but it lacks a verb and does not clarify the actual operation (e.g., list, validate, or convert). It does not distinguish itself 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 such as timezone or utc-time. No context, examples, or conditions for use 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?

The description states 'public robots.txt,' implying a read-only operation with no authentication required. This provides some transparency about safety. However, it does not address potential side effects, rate limits, or error behavior, and since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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, direct sentence without fluff. It is concise and front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is incomplete for the complexity of the schema. It fails to explain the role of three of the four parameters, does not describe expected output beyond 'group counts,' and lacks any mention of error conditions or edge cases. The tool's behavior is not fully contextualized.

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 includes four parameters (url, host, json, zone), but the description only mentions fetching robots.txt. It does not explain how these parameters relate to the operation, which ones are relevant, or what 'group counts' means in terms of inputs. The presence of json and zone parameters appears unrelated to the stated purpose, leaving parameter semantics entirely unexplained.

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 that the tool fetches a public robots.txt and returns group counts. It specifies the resource and action, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, which could cause minor 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of scenarios or conditions that would favor inspect-robots over other tools, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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 a key behavioral detail: query and fragment are dropped from the URL. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output structure looks like beyond the three components, or whether there are any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, this is the only transparency available.

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, tightly worded sentence that conveys the essential behavior without any filler. It is highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

While the description clearly explains the output for a URL input, it leaves the presence of the other three parameters ('host', 'json', 'zone') unexplained. This mismatch makes the overall context incomplete, as an agent cannot determine whether these parameters are required or how they affect normalization.

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 adds no meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema lists 'url', 'host', 'json', and 'zone' with descriptions that seem unrelated to URL normalization (e.g., 'json' for validation, 'zone' for timezone). The description fails to clarify why these parameters exist or how they relate to 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: return origin, host, and path for a URL while dropping query and fragment. This is a specific verb-resource pairing, making the purpose easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly mention the 'url' input parameter, leaving a slight gap.

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 neither names alternatives nor provides selection criteria, leaving the decision entirely to the agent.

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

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

The description gives no information about side effects, data access, mutation, or any behavioral characteristics. With no annotations to supplement, the tool's behavior is completely opaque.

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

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

The description is brief but fails to convey any actionable meaning. It is concise in length but not in clarity, making it ineffective despite being short.

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 what the tool does with the provided parameters, what output to expect, or how it relates to the sibling tools. It is incomplete even for a simple tool, leaving the agent with no basis 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?

Although every parameter has a description, the parameters (url, host, json, zone) are generic and appear unrelated to the stated purpose of cataloging HTTP status codes. The descriptions do not clarify how these inputs are used or what they mean in the context of the tool, so they add no semantic value.

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 ('Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') that does not state any action or behavior. It is unclear whether the tool lists, retrieves, or looks up status codes, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json or inspect-robots.

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 or under what conditions it should be invoked. The description lacks any context about the problem it solves or how it fits into a workflow.

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, but it only says 'current time' and does not disclose whether it performs a network lookup, how errors are handled, or whether it has side effects.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with the main purpose front-loaded. However, it does not structure or relate the additional parameters, so some clarity is lost.

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 incomplete for correct use: it does not specify that 'zone' is required, does not describe the output format, and ignores the three unrelated parameters in the schema. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the provided 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 is relevant only to the 'zone' parameter, while the schema also includes 'url', 'host', and 'json' with unrelated descriptions. This mismatch is highly misleading and leaves most parameters semantically unexplained.

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

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

The description states the tool returns the current time for a named IANA timezone, which is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like utc-time and iana-zones. It lacks an explicit verb and return details, but the core purpose is clear.

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 instead of alternatives such as utc-time for UTC time or iana-zones for zone listings. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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, and the description does not disclose any side effects, read-only nature, or behavior regarding the input parameters. The mismatch between the description's simplicity and the schema's four apparently unrelated parameters creates ambiguity about what the tool actually does with them.

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 short phrase. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary words, but it may be too sparse given the apparent complexity of the input 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?

The tool appears simple, but the mismatched parameters and lack of annotations mean the description is not complete enough for an agent to use it confidently. There is no explanation of output format, timezone handling, or why parameters exist, which is especially problematic because the tool is trivial but the schema is not.

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 individual descriptions for all four parameters, so each is documented. However, the tool description does not explain how these parameters relate to the 'current UTC timestamp' purpose, and their presence seems extraneous. The schema coverage is 100%, but the semantics are inconsistent with the tool's stated function.

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' is a clear statement of a simple verb-less noun phrase, implying the tool returns the current UTC time. However, the input schema includes unrelated parameters like url, host, and json, which creates confusion about the actual purpose. It does not fully distinguish from sibling tools like timezone, as it lacks explicit mention of returning a timestamp only.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timezone or iana-zones. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says the body is discarded; it does not explain what happens with url, host, or timezone, nor whether any side effects, network calls, or state changes occur.

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

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

The description is short and not verbose, but it is under-specified. It lacks enough structure or detail to convey the tool's actual behavior, making conciseness a drawback rather than a strength.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, examples, error conditions, or expected result format are provided. Given the confusing parameter set and absence of behavioral details, an agent cannot confidently determine how to call or interpret 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?

The schema descriptions cover all parameters but are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose. url, host, and timezone appear unrelated to validating JSON, and no explanation connects them to the operation. The json parameter is described clearly, but the overall parameter set is incoherent.

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 ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') but the resource and relevant parameters are confusing: the body is not named as a parameter, while unrelated parameters like url, host, and timezone are present. This makes it unclear what exactly is being validated.

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, nor about prerequisites, expected inputs, or context. The description offers no explicit or implicit usage direction.

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