Character count, text discarded

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. The phrase 'text discarded' is misleading because the input schema contains no text parameter, leaving side effects and data handling entirely unclear.

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 but lacks essential detail. It is not a well-structured explanation; it is a fragment that omits any operational 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?

The tool is incomplete for an agent to use correctly. There is no output schema, no parameter behavior explanation, and no indication of what input actually gets counted.

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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) are described generically and appear unrelated to character counting. Their descriptions seem copy-pasted from other tools and do not clarify how they contribute 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 'Character count, text discarded' is ambiguous and lacks a clear verb or resource. It does not explain what is being counted or how it differs from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list gives no context for selecting char-count.

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 transparency statement about data retention. However, it omits other behavioral aspects: it implies making an HTTP request to fetch the status but does not state this, nor does it mention redirects, error handling, network timeouts, or whether authentication is required. Since no annotations are provided, 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 extremely concise, using only two sentences to convey the core purpose and a key behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids any fluff or redundancy. The structure is logical 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 mismatch between the description and the parameter set, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the additional parameters (host, json, zone) or how they relate to the stated function. It also lacks details about output format, error conditions, or whether the tool makes network requests. This incompleteness could lead an agent to misuse the tool or misunderstand its capabilities.

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

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

The description does not explain the role of the parameters. It mentions 'a URL' but does not specify that the 'url' parameter is the input, nor does it clarify the purpose of the 'host', 'json', and 'zone' parameters, which seem unrelated to the stated functionality. While the schema provides individual parameter descriptions, they appear disconnected from the tool's primary purpose, creating confusion rather than adding clarity.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Return'), the specific resources (host, scheme, HTTP status), and the input (a URL). It also adds a relevant note that page content is not stored, which clarifies the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios or prerequisites. For example, it does not say 'Use this when you need to check a URL's reachability' or compare itself to normalize-url. The lack of usage context leaves the agent uncertain about tool selection.

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

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

There are no annotations, and the description only mentions that identifiers are not retained. It does not disclose other side effects, data handling, failure modes, or whether the tool reads or modifies state.

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, with one privacy note, but it is too vague to be effective. It is concise in length but not in informative value.

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 vague classification purpose and four heterogeneous parameters, the description lacks enough context for correct invocation. There is no output schema or explanation of how url, host, json, and zone relate to classification.

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

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

The schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone), and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is high.

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' but does not define what classification means, what categories are used, or what output is produced. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone.

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 instead of alternatives. No use cases, prerequisites, or context are provided, so an agent cannot decide when compatibility is 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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that no WHOIS lookups or data enrichment occur, which is a positive transparency statement. However, it does not mention side effects, network calls, or rate limits. The statement 'without WHOIS or data' partially addresses behavior but lacks completeness.

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 conveys the core function and an important exclusion. It is efficient and does not ramble. However, it could be slightly more structured by indicating which parameter is used, but the brevity is generally strong.

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 apparent simplicity, the description is incomplete: it does not specify the expected input format (e.g., does it accept a URL or just a hostname?), the output format (how labels are returned), or which of the four schema parameters should be provided. The mismatched parameter schema exacerbates the incompleteness, leaving an agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

The schema includes four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with descriptions that are often irrelevant to the tool's purpose. For example, 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name', which have no clear relation to splitting a hostname. The 'host' parameter description ('Public hostname') is aligned, but the presence of unrelated parameters makes the schema semantically confusing and poorly matched to the tool.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: splitting a hostname into labels. It also explicitly notes what it does not do ('without WHOIS or data'), which distinguishes it from potential siblings like inspect-robots or status-catalog. This is specific and actionable.

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

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

The description implies a use case (extract labels) and a non-use case (avoid for WHOIS/data). However, it does not explicitly point to alternatives like normalize-url for URL normalization or validate-json for JSON validation, so guidance on when to choose this tool over others is implicit rather than explicit.

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 no behavior: no mention of read-only vs mutation, return format, side effects, or error handling. The description is a single noun phrase with zero behavioral content.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but conciseness only earns credit when the content is sufficient. Here it omits essential information, so it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It has no structure, just a fragment.

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 minimal description, the tool is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what inputs to provide, what outputs to expect, or how it fits into a workflow. The schema parameters are unexplained in the context of timezone names, making the tool nearly unusable.

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 generic description. However, the description does not clarify how these parameters relate to the tool's stated purpose. The presence of url, host, and json suggests a different tool entirely, creating confusion. The description adds no value beyond the schema and fails to reconcile the mismatch.

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 resource ('Common IANA timezone names') but no action. It does not state what the tool does with these names (list, validate, convert?). The schema includes url, host, and json parameters that are unrelated to timezone names, making the purpose even more ambiguous. It does not clearly distinguish 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?

The phrase 'for clock calls' implies usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No alternatives are named, and no conditions or exclusions are given. An agent cannot decide between iana-zones and timezone based on this description.

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

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

The description discloses that it fetches a public resource and returns group counts, but it omits important behavioral details such as error handling, network assumptions, or whether it follows redirects. With no annotations, the behavior is only minimally transparent.

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

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

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and output. It contains no filler or redundant wording, so it is highly concise.

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 how the four parameters relate to fetching a robots.txt file. The presence of unrelated parameter descriptions makes the tool contextually incomplete and likely to confuse an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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

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

The parameter descriptions appear copied from unrelated tools: 'url' is described as a URL to normalize or cite, 'json' as JSON text to validate, and 'zone' as a timezone name. These directly conflict with the stated robots.txt purpose and provide actively misleading information about how the parameters should be used.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool fetches a public robots.txt and returns group counts, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but none of the siblings obviously target robots.txt, so the purpose is reasonably 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, limitations, or contrasting use cases, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is 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?

The description discloses the output behavior (returns origin, host, path; drops query/fragment) but does not explain how inputs like host, json, or zone affect behavior, nor does it mention error handling, edge cases, or side effects. This lack of detail leaves the tool's behavior under-specified.

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 directly states the main functionality in a single sentence, which is concise and easy to parse. It loses a point because the structural simplicity omits necessary detail about the parameters, making it less useful than it could be.

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

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

The description is incomplete given the schema and surrounding context. It fails to explain the extra parameters, lacks an output schema, and provides no information about errors or usage context. This makes it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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

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

None of the four schema parameters are described in the tool description. The description only implies a URL input but does not explain the meaning or purpose of the 'host', 'json', or 'zone' parameters, leaving their semantics completely unspecified.

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 primary function: returning origin, host, and path while dropping query and fragment. However, the presence of additional schema parameters (host, json, zone) that are not mentioned creates ambiguity about the tool's actual scope, preventing a perfect 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., validate-json, timezone, status-catalog). There is no mention of appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or contexts where this tool should be preferred.

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

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

No annotations exist, and the description provides no behavioral details such as read-only nature, side effects, or output format. The description is minimal and does not clarify what the tool does with its 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 brief and free of unnecessary words, but it is too sparse to be useful. It reads as a fragment rather than a clear tool 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?

The tool appears to involve HTTP status codes but the parameters and description suggest a different or mixed purpose. Without further detail, an agent cannot reliably decide when or how to invoke it.

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 with descriptions, but those descriptions (URL normalization, hostname, JSON validation, timezone) are unrelated to an HTTP status code catalog. This mismatch provides misleading semantics for the 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 identifies the resource as a catalog of common HTTP status codes but fails to state an action or how the provided parameters relate to that resource. It is too vague to distinguish from other tools without external context.

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 for when to use this tool versus any alternative. The sibling tools suggest varied functions, but the description offers no conditions or selection criteria.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Current time' without indicating whether the tool is read-only, what output format to expect, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's operational impact.

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, which is concise, but it omits essential information. It does not structure the details of input or output, making it more of a vague label than a useful description.

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

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

Given the lack of output schema and the minimal description, the tool is not self-contained. An agent would not know what the tool returns (e.g., formatted time, timezone offset) or how to handle errors. This is especially problematic because the schema includes unrelated parameters that require clarification.

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) with descriptions, but the tool description only mentions a 'named IANA timezone' without explicitly linking it to the 'zone' parameter. The other parameters are entirely unexplained in the description, leaving the agent confused about their relevance.

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 'Current time in a named IANA timezone,' which gives a basic idea but fails to specify which parameter corresponds to the timezone and does not differentiate from sibling tools like utc-time or iana-zones. The presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, json) further muddies the purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. The description does not mention any conditions or contexts that would make this tool the preferred choice.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description gives no detail about side effects, rate limits, or how the parameters are handled. The tool's behavior beyond returning a timestamp 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 extremely concise, which is good, but it omits essential information about parameters and output. It is too short to be considered appropriately sized for this 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?

The description is not complete enough for an agent to understand how to use the tool correctly. It doesn't explain what the parameters are for, what format the timestamp is in, or how it differs from similar tools.

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) have descriptions that are clearly unrelated to a UTC timestamp tool (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'). The description adds no meaning to these parameters and actually misleads an agent.

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 states the tool's purpose, and it is distinct from sibling tools like timezone or iana-zones. However, the presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) creates confusion, so it doesn't fully clarify what the tool actually does.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings (e.g., timezone, iana-zones). The description offers no context for selection.

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

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

The description mentions that the body is discarded, which is a behavioral detail, but it does not explain side effects, error handling, or the fate of other parameters. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is short and to the point, but the term 'body' is vague and could be interpreted in multiple ways. It is concise but not optimally clear.

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 mismatched schema and the lack of explanation about which parameters are actually used, the description is incomplete. The tool's behavior with respect to the extraneous parameters is unexplained.

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 parameter descriptions are misleading. Three parameters (url, host, zone) have descriptions that belong to other tools, while only 'json' has a relevant description. This actively confuses rather than clarifies.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the object 'whether a body is valid JSON', which is a specific action. However, it does not explicitly define what 'body' refers to, leaving slight ambiguity.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios or comparisons with sibling tools.

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