ISO country MH

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that task text is discarded and lists expected outputs, and 'Find' implies a read-only operation. It does not mention potential side effects, authentication, rate limits, or network behavior, leaving some 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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, the return items are enumerated, and the key behavioral warning about task text is included efficiently.

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 names the resource and return artifacts, and the schema covers parameter behavior. However, with 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description does not fully explain which parameters, if any, an agent should provide or what the response structure looks like beyond a short list.

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 itself adds no parameter-specific detail, though 'Task text discarded' clarifies that a likely input is ignored. The schema descriptions already cover each parameter's role or discarded behavior.

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: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid).' It also enumerates the return artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling URL/time/file-checking 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?

The intended use is implied: call this when an agent needs the Monid gateway setup and supporting files. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives, though 'Task text discarded' provides a useful exclusion.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The only behavior disclosed is 'No browser is launched.' It does not say whether a network request occurs, whether results are returned, whether inputs are retained, or whether this is a pure shape check despite the presence of params labeled 'discarded after the check.'

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler; both sentences earn their place. The brevity is efficient, though it leaves out contextual details that would make the tool genuinely well-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?

The tool has nine heterogeneous optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, how to invoke it, what the 'OK' outcome means, or how the non-URL parameters fit into the check. This is inadequate for reliable selection and 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 schema itself documents all nine parameters. However, the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain how params like city, feed, ref, json, and query relate to checking whether a URL can be opened. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 description names a specific action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and resource ('a URL'), so the core purpose is clear. It also adds a key distinguishing constraint ('No browser is launched'), but it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, nor does it reconcile the URL-focused purpose with the many unrelated-looking schema parameters.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. 'No browser is launched' hints at a lightweight check, but stops short of telling an agent when to choose this over web-fetch, playwright-url-ok, fetch-status, 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the expression is discarded, but does not state whether a numeric result is returned, how errors are handled, or what side effects occur.

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

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

The text is brief and the main verb is front-loaded, but the second sentence is cryptic and no parameter mapping is included. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness for a nine-parameter tool.

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 unrelated optional parameters, a two-sentence description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot tell what input is required, what the call returns, or how arithmetic-related inputs are represented.

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 the nine parameters, but the description's 'a+b expression' maps to none of them; every parameter is optional and marked as a shape-check or discard-only field. An agent cannot identify which parameter to populate to perform arithmetic.

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 phrase names a concrete operation ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic'), but the second ('Expression discarded') muddies whether the tool returns a result or is a discard/check helper. With no arithmetic parameter in the input schema, the actual purpose is 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 choose this tool over alternatives; sibling tools like domain-shape and validate-json are not referenced. The only context is the operation name, so an agent must infer applicability.

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 meaningful behavioral trait: "Page content is not stored." With no annotations provided, though, it carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does not mention network side effects, error handling, or whether only the URL parameter is actually used.

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 function is front-loaded, and the non-storage note is a useful secondary detail that 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 a nine-parameter schema, no annotations, no output schema, and several overlapping sibling tools, this description is under-specified. It omits the return format, whether the URL is required, how invalid or non-HTTPS URLs behave, and which parameters are ignored at the tool level.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying what the URL parameter produces: host, scheme, and HTTP status. It does not explain the other eight parameters, but their schema descriptions already cover disposal 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 clearly states the action and scope: "Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL." This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from overlapping siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, which may also return parts of this information.

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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. It also does not say whether this is preferred for citation-only checks or when page content should not be stored.

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 add one useful privacy behavior, 'No identifiers are retained,' but it fails to disclose whether inputs are sent externally, whether the call has side effects, what output is produced, or how the classification is computed.

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 fluff, and the privacy statement earns its place. It is front-loaded with the purpose statement. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of substantive 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?

This is a 9-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations and no usage guidance. The description does not explain what classification means, what the response looks like, whether multiple parameters can be combined, or how to interpret results. It is inadequate for an agent to select and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each of the 9 parameters individually described, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema largely compensates for that gap.

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 says 'Show how this request is classified,' which identifies a verb and a resource but leaves the classification scheme undefined. It is not a tautology, but it is vague: an agent cannot tell what categories or criteria are involved, nor how this differs from the many 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus any sibling tool, despite a long list of siblings that appear to correspond to individual input types. The privacy statement says nothing about selection conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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 burden, but it only says the tool does not provide WHOIS or ownership data. It implies a pure parsing operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, makes no network calls, or discards inputs—though the schema descriptions partially cover this.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and the negative qualifier about WHOIS/ownership data is useful rather than filler.

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 nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description gives no guidance on how the broad input schema maps to the stated operation. An agent cannot reliably tell which parameter to supply, what the return shape is, or how irrelevant parameters are handled, making the definition incomplete for its complexity.

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 tool description adds no parameter-specific detail. The schema already describes each field, but the tool-level description does not clarify why the schema contains many fields unrelated to hostname splitting or which parameter to prefer.

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: 'Split a hostname into labels,' which clearly states the core operation. The qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' helps distinguish it from lookup-style tools, 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need hostname labels and not WHOIS or ownership data. However, it provides no explicit alternatives, no mention of which of the nine input parameters is relevant, and no guidance about the many unrelated parameters in the schema.

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 transparency burden; 'HEAD' and 'return status only' disclose that this is a safe read operation that does not fetch content. But it does not reveal what happens when the other optional parameters are supplied, nor address redirects, errors, or rate limits, and the 'public URL' statement conflicts with several schema properties.

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 and is front-loaded, which is good. It is too sparse, however, to orient the agent to a 9-parameter, all-optional interface, so the conciseness veers into under-specification.

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 annotations, no output schema, and nine heterogeneous optional parameters, the one-line description is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the stated HEAD operation or what 'status' means in each case.

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 does explain each parameter individually. The tool description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond 'public URL', and it never identifies which of the nine optional parameters is the intended URL to HEAD.

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 phrase 'HEAD a public URL and return status only' is a specific verb+resource+outcome, so it is not tautological. However, it does not match the 9-parameter schema: only `url` could plausibly be the target, and its schema description says 'normalize or cite' rather than HEAD; the other parameters (city, feed, json, zone, query) are unrelated. This makes the actual purpose 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?

The description implies this tool is for public-URL status-only checks, which gives some selection context. It does not explicitly say when to prefer it over sibling tools like web-fetch, browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, or how to handle the non-URL parameters.

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, but it only discloses that the path is discarded. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or whether any network access occurs. The phrase 'Path discarded' is also ambiguous against the schema's 'path' property described as 'File path to check.'

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

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

The description is extremely short and front-loaded with the core action before the 'Path discarded' note. There is no filler, and every word earns its place, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing important behavioral and usage 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?

Given nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse for reliable invocation. It does not say what the tool returns, which parameter to supply, or that this is a local validation rather than a network operation. Only the path-discarded trait is conveyed.

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 a small hint that path is ignored, but it does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters actually matter for this tool or how the unrelated fields are treated. This leaves the parameter mapping largely to inference.

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: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This distinguishes it from generic URL tools and other domain-shape siblings. The 'Path discarded' note adds scoping, though it does not explicitly say the tool validates or returns a shape-check result.

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 choose this tool over normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or the other shape tools. No alternatives are named, and no exclusions are stated. The intended use is only implied by the resource name.

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 transparency burden; 'No disk access' is a useful behavioral constraint that tells an agent the tool won't touch the filesystem. However, it doesn't disclose the return shape, what 'safe' means, whether existence is checked, or error 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the second sentence carries real information. This is an efficiently structured description, even though it is minimal.

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 a fairly rich input schema and no output schema or annotations, the description is far too brief to explain how a 9-parameter schema maps to a 'path' check, whether more than one parameter can be passed, or what the return value is. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool from 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond calling out 'path' and doesn't clarify how the other eight schema properties relate to the 'path' check.

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 and resource ('check whether a path looks safe') and adds a meaningful scoping statement ('No disk access'), which helps distinguish it from URL/title checker siblings. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, and the input schema contains several unrelated parameters (url, city, json), so the purpose statement isn't fully aligned with the full parameter surface.

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 choose this tool over alternatives like browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or validate-json. 'No disk access' hints at a lightweight check but doesn't state prerequisites, exclusions, or a when-not-to-use 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions Open-Meteo, implying an external network call, but does not state failure modes, output format, rate limits, or how a 'place' is resolved.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, for a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the brevity is 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?

Given the tool's complexity—nine optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations—the one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to safely invoke it. It fails to identify the target parameter or explain the return contract beyond stating latitude and longitude.

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, but the description does not connect 'a place' to any of the nine parameters. The schema contains city, url, host, zone, query, and others, many labeled as discarded after shape checks, which conflicts with the geocoding purpose described.

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 outcome—latitude and longitude for a place—and names the external source, Open-Meteo. This is clear and distinct enough from sibling tools like weather-hint, though it does not explicitly reference any sibling or explain the 'hint' naming.

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, nor any indication of which input parameter should be supplied. The description simply states what the tool does without explaining when it is the appropriate 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 behavioral disclosure; it does state the core parse behavior and implies no mutation. However, it does not describe the result format, handling of invalid or non-GitHub URLs, or that the many sibling fields are ignored.

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 contributes to 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?

Although concise, the description leaves an agent to reconcile a broad 9-parameter optional schema with a GitHub-specific parse function. There is no guidance on which parameter is required for the intended use, no output schema, and no error behavior, so the description is not complete enough 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter guidance in the description. The description only hints at the `url` parameter and does not clarify that it is the operative one, but the schema already documents each 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 ('Parse'), a concrete result ('owner and repo'), and the input source ('GitHub URL'). This is enough to tell the tool apart from sibling shape tools like figma-url-shape and jira-key-shape.

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 GitHub-URL phrasing implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as normalize-url or the other *-shape tools. An agent has to infer the boundary from the tool name.

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 meaningful behavioral detail: titles are discarded, so only the count is returned. Since no annotations are present, it carries more responsibility, but it still does not clarify whether it performs a network fetch, how the nine optional parameters are treated, or what the exact return format is.

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: one action sentence and one short clarifying fragment. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word carries meaning.

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 annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unresolved. It does not state whether no arguments are needed, whether any supplied arguments are safely ignored, or what the return value looks like beyond 'count' and 'titles discarded.' An agent could reasonably hesitate about which of the many schema fields to populate.

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 tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The description does not clarify which parameters are actually relevant to the HN count, but it also does not contradict or misrepresent 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 action ('Count'), the resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), and the output boundary ('Titles discarded'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools, none of which target HN front-page counting.

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 use case is strongly implied: call this when the user wants the current HN front-page story count. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, what inputs to leave empty, or which sibling tool might be more appropriate for related tasks.

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 says the tool concerns common IANA timezone names for clock calls, not what happens when invoked, what output is produced, or how the nine input parameters affect the call. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 short, fluff-free noun phrase, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. Conciseness is achieved, but not appropriate completeness or structure.

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 and no output schema, the description must provide full context for correct invocation. It does not state what the tool returns, how inputs are used, or when to choose this tool over timezone-related siblings. An agent cannot reliably determine how to call or interpret the tool from this description.

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 adds no parameter-level meaning, and the schema's documented parameters like ref, url, and city seem only loosely related to the stated purpose. Still, the description does not need to compensate because the schema already describes each 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 identifies the resource: common IANA timezone names for clock calls. However, it lacks a verb or operation, so it doesn't specify whether the tool returns, validates, or lists these names. It is more than a pure tautology because of the 'clock calls' context, but it does not clearly distinguish itself from 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to prefer iana-zones over sibling tools, mention alternatives, or give conditions for use. Agents must guess usage based on the name and short phrase.

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 does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait—returning 'group counts only' rather than full content—and implies a read-only fetch of a public resource. However, it does not mention error behavior, redirects, rate limits, or the fact that most parameters are discarded after the call.

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 single sentence is tight and front-loads the core purpose plus the key output restriction. It earns its place, though it is arguably too compressed given the complexity of the nine-parameter 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the full invocation picture. It does not say which parameter holds the robots.txt URL, what the returned group counts look like, or how this tool behaves differently from sibling network inspection tools, making it incomplete for correct call construction.

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 need to re-list parameter meanings. However, the description introduces 'robots.txt' without mapping it to any of the nine parameters, leaving an agent unable to determine whether url, host, or something else is the actual target.

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 identifies a specific action ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('public robots.txt'), and a specific output ('group counts only'). It is clear at a surface level, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like web-fetch, fetch-status, or browser-url-ok, and it does not state which input parameter supplies the robots.txt 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?

There is no guidance about when to use inspect-robots versus any of the many sibling fetch/shape/status tools. The description says what the tool does but gives no contextual trigger, prerequisite, or exclusion 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Key discarded' at least suggests non-retention and side-effect-free validation, which is useful. But it does not disclose return value, error behavior, expected valid shapes, or whether any network/API access occurs.

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 avoids waste, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Two sentences provide minimal surface-level information and no structural aids such as examples, conditions, or parameter mapping.

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 a large set of sibling tools, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameter to populate, what the tool returns, or how it behaves, making confident selection and invocation 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 coverage is 100%, but the description never maps 'Jira key' to any of the nine parameters; there is no `key` field and the schema shows unrelated parameters like url, city, feed, and json. Although every parameter has a schema description, the core semantic link between the tool's purpose and its actual inputs is missing, making correct invocation guesswork.

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: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This is distinct from sibling tools like github-repo-shape or figma-url-shape. However, it does not explain what constitutes a valid Jira key shape, and the phrase 'Key discarded' is ambiguous about the operation's effect.

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 domain-shape, github-repo-shape, or normalize-url. The description neither gives context for its intended use nor excludes cases where another tool would be more appropriate.

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 burden. It does disclose that the body is discarded, which is useful, but it does not mention whether the tool performs a network request, how errors are handled, redirect behavior, or whether any other side effects occur.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded: the primary action and the body-discard behavior are stated in two brief sentences. It is concise with no filler, though it sacrifices some necessary context.

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 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain what the return value looks like, which parameters to use, why most schema parameters are seemingly unrelated, or how this tool behaves when the URL is invalid or unreachable.

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 adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify that 'url' is likely the relevant parameter or how the other eight optional parameters relate to the stated 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 states a concrete outcome: it returns the HTTP status for a public library docs URL, and mentions that the body is discarded. This makes the core purpose understandable, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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 scope 'for a public library docs URL' implies when the tool should be used, but the description gives no explicit usage guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer a sibling tool such as fetch-status 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Values discarded' is a genuine disclosure that the values are ignored, which is helpful. However, it does not state the return format, handling of invalid JSON, depth of counting, or whether the operation is side-effect free.

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 and front-loaded. Two short sentences state the core action and the key behavioral trait with no filler or repetition.

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 annotations and no output schema, the definition is incomplete. The nine-parameter schema with unrelated-looking fields makes it especially important to state which input to provide and what the count applies to; the description does not do that.

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 little parameter-specific meaning: it does not map 'JSON object' to the 'json' field or clarify how the nine optional string parameters relate to the count. The 'values discarded' hint is useful but not enough to resolve the ambiguity.

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 action—'Count keys in a JSON object'—and adds a useful qualifier, 'Values discarded,' which distinguishes counting from validation or value-based tools. It is not vague, though it does not specify whether top-level or nested keys are counted or which schema parameter is the JSON object.

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 siblings like validate-json, and no mention of exclusions or alternatives. The agent must infer entirely from the name and terse description that this tool is for key counting rather than validation.

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 clearly states the transformation performed and the dropping of query and fragment. It does not mention network behavior, but the stated output strongly implies a local parse; while more detail would be welcome, the core behavior is transparent enough.

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 primary action and output are stated first, and the exclusionary detail about query and fragment is a necessary and efficient addition without any wasted 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?

While the schema richly documents all nine parameters, the description itself does not clarify why so many unrelated optional parameters exist or how they interact with URL normalization. The return value is specified, but without examples or routing guidance, the overall definition is adequate yet leaves some contextual gaps for such a broad parameter set.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description itself only adds context about the output for the 'url' parameter and does not add parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Return'), a clear resource ('URL'), and the exact output components ('origin, host, and path'). It also says what is deliberately omitted ('Query and fragment are dropped'), which distinguishes it from sibling URL tools that check validity or fetch content.

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 is used when you need to extract origin, host, and path from a URL, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related tools like figma-url-shape, github-repo-shape, or web-fetch. It does not state exclusions or alternatives, so the agent must 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does add one useful trait—'No browser is launched'—but it omits how the check is performed, what 'can be opened' means, failure modes, side effects, or whether any network request occurs. This is a significant transparency gap.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler or repetition. The most behaviorally important caveat, 'No browser is launched,' is front-loaded immediately after the main action, so 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 no output schema, no annotations, 9 optional parameters, and a large sibling set, this description is too thin. It does not explain return values, success criteria, what 'ok' means, or how this tool relates to similar URL-oriented siblings, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 has 100% description coverage across all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not identify which parameter is the primary input, but the schema descriptions already provided detailed per-parameter context.

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 URL can be opened') on a clear resource, and adds a clarifying behavioral qualifier ('No browser is launched'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling tool browser-url-ok, which prevents a top score.

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 alternatives like browser-url-ok, fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. There are no exclusions, preconditions, or selection criteria beyond the obvious purpose implied by the action.

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 disclosing behavior. It does state 'Query discarded,' which is a useful side-effect disclosure, but it says nothing about how the other eight parameters are treated, whether multiple inputs are allowed, or what the return value represents.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Both sentences contribute useful information. It sacrifices guidance for brevity, but as a concise statement it is effective.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is incomplete. The agent does not learn whether exactly one parameter should be supplied, which parameter is the 'search query,' or what the output looks like. Parameter descriptions compensate somewhat, but tool-level context is missing.

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 each parameter. The description adds only 'Query discarded,' which mostly mirrors the query parameter description. It provides no additional meaning about how to select among the many optional parameters.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Count characters in a search query.' This is distinguishable from count-like siblings such as hn-front-count or memory-key-count by the explicit focus on search query text. However, it does not address why the schema contains nine unrelated optional parameters, which slightly weakens 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 about when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like normalize-url, validate-json, or memory-key-count. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, so an agent has to infer the appropriate context.

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 says the tool is a 'catalog' and gives no information about side effects, ignored inputs, return shape, or operational behavior. The schema parameter descriptions mention discarding inputs, but the description itself provides no behavioral 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 text is short and has no wasted words, but it is an under-specified noun phrase rather than a real tool description. It is concise in length but not in meaning, which is closer to under-specification than effective conciseness.

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 seven unrelated-looking parameters, the absence of an output schema, and the need to choose among many sibling tools, this description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what an agent should pass, what it will receive, or how the parameters relate to the stated catalog purpose.

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 contains seven parameters, each with its own description, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but because the schema already documents each parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 identifies the resource ('common HTTP status codes') and the general nature of the tool as a 'catalog', but it lacks a verb and does not state what an invocation returns or how it is used. It is distinguishable from siblings like fetch-status only by inference—'catalog' suggests a static reference while fetch-status implies a live lookup—but this is not made explicit.

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 fetch-status or web-fetch. The phrase 'short catalog of common HTTP status codes' weakly implies a reference use case, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection criteria 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the prompt is discarded, indicating a stateless, side-effect-free call. It does not detail whether the returned template is fixed, but the discard statement is meaningful 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat ('Prompt discarded') is supplied without elaboration. 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the three steps are, whether parameters are required, or why there are many different discarded parameters. This leaves an agent uncertain about invocation details and expected return.

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 every parameter and repeatedly notes that values are discarded after checks. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline for 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 description names a concrete action ('Return') and a specific deliverable ('three-step thinking template'), which distinguishes it from the sibling validation/hint tools. The appended 'Prompt discarded' clarifies that the prompt content is not part of the output.

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 about when to call this tool or when to prefer a sibling. The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, so an agent has to infer the intended use from the name alone.

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 only says 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' and reveals nothing about side effects, validation, return shape, or how to supply the timezone name.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with no filler words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It sacrifices informativeness, but as a standalone phrase it is efficiently written.

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 a 9-parameter input schema containing several unrelated fields, this one-sentence description is insufficient for reliable invocation. The agent is left to guess which parameter is the IANA timezone and how the tool behaves.

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 each parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the phrase 'named IANA timezone,' which weakly points to the name field but does not explicitly bind it.

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 what the tool returns: the current time for a named IANA timezone. It conveys the core resource and scope, though it lacks a strong verb and does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling time-related 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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like utc-time or iana-zones. The description does not mention prerequisites, the required parameter, or any conditions for choosing this tool.

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

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

The description only states the output and discloses none of the tool's behavioral traits. It does not mention that all seven input parameters are ignored or that the call is side-effect-free, which is particularly concerning because the schema includes unrelated parameters like url, city, and json that the agent might assume affect the result.

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 short sentence that immediately states the core function, with no wasted words or redundancy. It is efficiently front-loaded 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?

Given the odd input schema with multiple seemingly unrelated parameters, the description alone is insufficient. It does not explain why those parameters exist, how they relate to the timestamp, or what the return value looks like (e.g., format), and there is no output schema to fill that 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?

All seven parameters are described in the schema, many explicitly noting that they are discarded, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already carries the necessary details; 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 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly identifies the output as the current Coordinated Universal Time and distinguishes it from sibling tools like timezone by specifying UTC rather than a local or arbitrary zone. Despite being a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, it unambiguously states the tool's purpose.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or any of the many sibling tools, leaving the selection decision 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 provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the body is discarded, which signals a non-persistent check, but it does not explain side effects, output behavior, or what happens for invalid JSON.

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 the core purpose. The second sentence adds relevant discard behavior without waste. It earns a strong score for efficiency, though it lacks any structural guidance for parameters or usage.

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 the schema providing parameter descriptions, the overall definition omits return behavior, error handling, and usage context. For a tool with seven parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin to be considered complete enough 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 input schema already provides descriptions for all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and is somewhat vague in using 'body' rather than mapping directly to the 'json' parameter, but it does not mislead.

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 checks whether a body is valid JSON, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly reference the 'json' parameter, but the intent is unambiguous and it is not a mere tautology.

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 about when to use validate-json instead of sibling validation tools such as wiki-title-ok, file-path-ok, or github-repo-shape. No conditions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving selection to 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It names Open-Meteo and implies a read-only call, but it does not state what happens with the eight non-weather parameters, whether they are ignored, what units/format the temperature is returned in, or any error/rate-limit behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with such a broad schema.

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

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

The description is a single clean sentence with no filler and the provider is front-loaded. However, it is arguably too terse for the complexity of the schema, so it is not 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, nine optional parameters, and many sibling tools, a one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain why the schema includes so many unrelated fields, which parameter to supply for weather, or what a successful response looks 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; each parameter already has an explanation. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming city, and it does not resolve the mismatch between the weather-focused purpose and the unrelated ref/feed/json/path/zone/query parameters.

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

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

The description states a clear resource and provider: 'Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo.' This is specific and distinguishes the tool by subject from siblings like geo-hint, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives. The unrelated parameters in the schema slightly undermine clarity, but the core 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent can infer use for current-city-temperature queries, but with 26 siblings and an input schema containing parameters for URL normalization, JSON validation, and timezones, the description leaves the selection and invocation decision entirely to 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 provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It valuably states that the body is discarded and that the URL must be public. It does not mention redirects, timeouts, error handling, or side-effect potential, making the disclosure adequate but incomplete.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about discarding the body is immediately useful and does not waste space.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only explains the URL-facing behavior. It does not clarify how the many optional parameters relate to the tool or what response/error details to expect, leaving important context to inference.

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 each parameter. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond emphasizing URL as the meaningful input, but because the schema is self-sufficient, the baseline score 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 specific action and resource: return the HTTP status and content type for a public URL. It also clarifies that the body is discarded, which clearly separates it from tools that return page content. This is specific enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.

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

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

The phrase 'for a public URL' gives a clear context, and 'Body discarded' implies this tool should not be used when page content is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as fetch-status or browser-url-ok, so guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings is only 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Check whether' implies read-only behavior and 'Title discarded after the call' adds a meaningful retention/state fact. However, it does not explain network behavior, error handling, or what counts as an existing title.

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 concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The discard note provides useful behavioral detail in minimal space.

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 output schema documents the return shape, but the main calling convention is unresolved: the input schema lacks a parameter for the Wikipedia title. Combined with the missing usage guidance, an agent cannot safely invoke 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 input schema has detailed descriptions for seven parameters, but none of them is a Wikipedia title. The description's central concept is not mapped to any parameter, so an agent cannot determine which field supplies the title to check.

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 and resource: checking whether a Wikipedia title exists. It is distinguishable from sibling shape/url-check tools by its unique subject, though it does not explicitly name an 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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling checking tools, nor any conditions or exclusions. 'Title discarded after the call' is a data-handling note, not usage context.

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