djb2 hex, input discarded

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

The description reveals that task text and parameter values are discarded after shape checks, which is a useful side-effect disclosure. However, it does not state whether the tool makes network calls, whether it has costs, what errors may occur, or whether it is a read-only operation.

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

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

The main description is short and starts with the primary action, which is good. But the repeated 'discarded after...' notes in the schema add noise without adding useful information, and the overall structure is more cryptic than 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?

There is no output schema, no explanation of what 'connection methods' look like, no error behavior, and no usage context. The tool is far from complete for an agent to invoke effectively.

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 9 parameters have descriptions, but most descriptions emphasize that values are 'discarded after' checks, so they provide little real semantic meaning. The connection between parameters and the task domain (e.g., city-to-weather, query-to-search) is only hinted and not systematically explained.

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

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

The description states the tool 'finds a public pay-per-call tool gateway' and returns 'connection methods', but it never explains how the task is specified. The 9 optional parameters are not clearly tied to the examples (weather, search, scrape, voice), and the phrase 'Task text discarded' confuses the core input.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus any sibling tool, what kind of request fits it, or what conditions favor it. The examples 'weather, search, scrape, or voice' are too broad and do not map to concrete parameter usage.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears the transparency burden and it does disclose one important safety trait: no browser is launched. However, it does not mention whether a network request is made, what side effects or errors may occur, or how the result is reported.

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, front-loads the core action, and the second sentence adds a meaningful safety qualifier without padding.

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 unusually broad 9-parameter optional schema and no annotations or output schema, the description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation. It does not explain the role of the extra parameters, whether any parameter is required in practice, or what 'can be opened' means operationally.

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

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

The schema has 100% parameter descriptions, but several are inconsistent with the tool purpose (e.g., 'url' says 'normalize or cite' rather than 'check openability') and many unrelated optional parameters are described only as 'discarded' with no explanation of how they relate to the URL check. The tool description does not clarify which parameter is the target or how the optional hints affect 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 clearly names the action ('check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a distinguishing constraint ('No browser is launched'), which separates it from browser-based siblings like playwright-url-ok. It is slightly vague about the exact mechanism (HTTP, HEAD, fetch) but the core purpose is understandable.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance; 'No browser is launched' only implies that this is the choice when browser rendering is not desired. A direct comparison or recommendation would be needed for a higher score.

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. It only says 'Expression discarded', which hints at a behavior but is ambiguous—no indication of side effects, permissions, return value, or what 'discarded' means operationally. This is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters and no output 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 sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified. It lacks any structure or front-loading of key info. While concise, it fails to convey essential operational details, making it more of an under-specification than a concise, well-structured 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what the tool returns, or when to call it. An agent would be completely in the dark about 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 every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither enhances nor contradicts the parameter documentation.

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 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic', which gives a specific action but is vague. It doesn't clarify how the expression is provided, and none of the 9 parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) suggest an arithmetic expression. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like shape-checkers or fetch tools. The phrase 'Expression discarded' adds confusion rather than 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any alternative. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. An agent has no basis to decide to call this tool instead of a sibling.

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. It discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful non‑obvious behavior. However, it does not mention network requests, potential failures, or other side effects, so transparency is partial.

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

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

The description is concise and well‑structured, using two clear sentences. It front‑loads the action and output, and the added constraint is presented succinctly without unnecessary verbosity.

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 complexity (many parameters and no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the extraneous parameters, the expected output format, or any error behavior. The agent would have little context to call it correctly beyond the basic URL 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?

The schema includes nine parameters, but the description only references a URL. Many parameters are marked as 'discarded after checks', yet the description does not clarify which parameter (likely `url`) is the primary input or how the other parameters relate to the described output. This leaves the parameter semantics vague.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, using a specific verb and resource. It also adds a constraint about not storing page content. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status, though the specific output set helps distinguish it.

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

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

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a simple URL metadata check, but does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy hint, but fails to disclose whether the tool makes network calls, mutates state, or what it does with the inputs. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is minimal and 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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The two sentences provide almost no actionable information, making the brevity a liability. Essential details about the tool's purpose and behavior are missing, so the description does not earn 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 the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what classification means, what the output looks like, how the parameters are used, or any other context needed 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented with a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how the parameters relate to the classification or which parameter to use in which situation. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden, but the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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

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

The description says 'Show how this request is classified' but does not specify what 'request' means, what classification entails, or which of the 9 parameters is relevant. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, leaving the agent without a clear idea of 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 given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description offers no context about typical use cases, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess 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 explicitly states 'input discarded', and each parameter description repeats that the value is discarded after a 'shape check' or similar. This gives a minor hint about behavior (inputs are not used for computation), but it does not disclose side effects, return values, or error conditions.

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 short phrase), but it lacks essential information. It is not well-structured or front-loaded with the most important details, as the core purpose is missing. The parameter descriptions are uniform and add little structural 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?

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no clear explanation of what the tool does, the description is grossly incomplete. There is no information about expected return values, failure modes, or how this tool fits into a workflow.

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

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

The schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter described as being discarded after a check. This provides some semantics – the values are not used – but it is repetitive and does not clarify what the 'shape checks' are or how the parameters relate to the tool's purpose. All parameters are optional, further reducing their meaningfulness.

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 'djb2 hex, input discarded' is cryptic and fails to clearly state the tool's purpose. It hints at a djb2 hash or a validation, but the actual function (e.g., what it returns, what it validates) is not explained. The tool name 'djb2-ok' suggests a check, but no concrete operation is described.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools (e.g., browser-url-ok, validate-json). The description does not mention scenarios, 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It only says the tool does not provide WHOIS/ownership data, but it does not disclose whether it performs network access, has side effects, or what it does with the input parameters.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately names the action and object. It contains no filler and is 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?

There is no output schema and the description does not explain what the split result looks like. It also omits usage context, parameter relevance, and any side-effect information, leaving the agent without enough context to confidently invoke the tool.

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

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

Although the schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions appear unrelated to the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint', 'JSON text to validate'). The main description does not clarify which parameters are relevant to splitting a hostname, so the semantics are confusing rather than additive.

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: 'Split a hostname into labels'. It also disambiguates itself from ownership/WHOIS-related tools by saying 'without WHOIS or ownership data', which helps distinguish it from 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 of the many sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, criteria for selection, or scenarios where it should or should not be used.

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 HTTP method and output format but fails to explain the nine optional parameters or their side effects. The parameter descriptions in the schema are misleading (e.g., 'url' described as 'normalize or cite') and contradict the stated purpose of fetching a URL status, so the tool's actual behavior remains 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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the core functionality. It is appropriately short, though it could benefit from a brief mention of parameters to improve 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?

The description leaves critical gaps: no explanation of the nine parameters, no detail on the return format (e.g., status code only, or additional info), and no clarification of what 'public' entails. Given the tool's apparent complexity (many optional parameters), the description is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without further 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, every parameter description appears mismatched with the tool's purpose. For instance, 'ref' is described as a 'Git ref name' and 'city' as a 'public weather hint', which do not relate to HEAD requests. These descriptions add confusion rather than meaning, falling below the baseline for full 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 clearly states the action (HEAD), the resource (public URL), and the output (status only). It is specific enough to distinguish the tool's core function, though it could explicitly mention HTTP status code for better precision.

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 many siblings (e.g., web-fetch, browser-url-ok, normalize-url). It lacks context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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 states that a path is discarded. It does not disclose whether parsing is read-only, what inputs are accepted, how invalid URLs are handled, or what output is produced.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence is ambiguous but not padded; conciseness is good.

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 and no output schema, but the description does not explain which parameters matter, what the parse result looks like, or how errors are reported. It is not complete enough to call confidently.

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 are generic boilerplate and mostly unrelated to Figma URLs (e.g., city, feed, zone, query). 'url' is described as 'normalize or cite' rather than Figma-specific, and the description only adds that path is discarded.

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

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

The description names a specific verb and target: parse a Figma file URL. It is distinguishable from sibling URL/domain tools, though 'Path discarded' is ambiguous and no output is described.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over normalize-url, domain-shape, or other URL-related siblings. It implies use for Figma URLs but gives no selection criteria or exclusions.

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

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

The description discloses that there is no disk access, which is a positive behavior detail. However, it does not explain what 'looks safe' means (e.g., traversal checks, existence), what the return value is, or any side effects. 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 very brief and to the point, using two short sentences. It is well-structured and easy to read.

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 lacks critical context: it doesn't mention what the tool returns, how it handles various inputs, or why the schema includes eight unrelated parameters. It is not complete for a tool with this 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?

The tool description doesn't reference any of the nine parameters. The schema provides descriptions for each, but the 'path' parameter is the only one aligned with the tool's purpose. The other parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) are unrelated and unexplained by the description, causing confusion about their role.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking if a path looks safe, and explicitly notes no disk access. This is specific and unambiguous, though it doesn't mention sibling tools to differentiate, the purpose is distinct enough.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It only mentions 'no disk access' as a safety property, but doesn't explain scenarios where this check is preferred over other tools like 'browser-url-ok' or 'fetch-status'. No alternatives or conditions are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only mentions the core function and the data source (Open-Meteo). It does not disclose side effects, required inputs, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description is far too minimal for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 immediately states the purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy. However, its brevity comes at the cost of clarity regarding the schema, so while concise, it is not optimally structured for usability.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how the place is specified (which parameter to use), what the output format is, or any constraints. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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

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

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't clarify that 'city' is likely the primary parameter for the geo lookup, nor does it explain the role of the other eight parameters. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo. This is clear and unambiguous, but it doesn't distinguish from siblings like weather-hint, and the schema includes many unrelated parameters, so the agent may not know which parameter to use.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like weather-hint. No context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions is provided. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and 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?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any side effects, error handling, or limitations. It only says 'parse,' implying a read-only operation, but gives no details on what happens with invalid URLs or unexpected 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 a single, concise sentence that gets to the point without wasted words. Its structure is simple and clean, though it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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 lacks an output schema and does not explain how the 9 parameters are used or which are required. This leaves agents without essential information about how to call the tool effectively or interpret its results.

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 9 optional parameters, but most descriptions are unrelated to parsing GitHub URLs (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint,' 'Public RSS or Atom URL'). These misleading parameter descriptions actively confuse agents about which inputs are relevant, failing to add meaningful 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 tool parses the owner and repo from a GitHub URL, naming the exact resource and action. However, it omits details about the output format or any edge cases, so it's slightly lacking in completeness.

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 similar URL-shape tools like figma-url-shape or jira-key-shape. There's no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects, read-only behavior, rate limits, or output format. It discloses none of these; 'Titles discarded' hints at internal behavior but is not transparent about what the call does.

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 action. However, the second sentence 'Titles discarded' is ambiguous and slightly undermines the clarity.

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 specify the return format, whether any input is needed, or how the unrelated-looking parameters relate to the tool. An agent could not confidently construct a correct call from this definition alone.

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

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

The schema has detailed descriptions, but most parameters appear unrelated to counting Hacker News front-page stories. The tool description does not explain how or whether to use any of these parameters, leaving the relevant argument choices unclear.

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

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

The description states a specific operation and resource: count current Hacker News front-page stories. The phrase 'Titles discarded' is somewhat cryptic but does not obscure 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The agent is left 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency, but it discloses no behavior at all: no side effects, return format, error cases, or operational characteristics. The tool could return a list, check membership, or perform some other action.

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

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

The description is short and free of fluff, but it is too terse to be well-structured. It front-loads the name but omits the essential verb and parameter guidance, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 ambiguous name, nine optional parameters, and lack of output schema, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what inputs are relevant, what the tool returns, what 'common' means, or how it relates to clock calls.

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

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

Although the schema has 100% property description coverage, the tool description never connects any parameter to the tool's purpose. The 'zone' parameter is plausibly relevant, but the schema also includes eight unrelated optional parameters with 'discarded' notes, making it unclear which input iana-zones actually consumes.

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') and a context ('clock calls'), but uses no verb, so it is unclear whether the tool returns, validates, or lists these names. It is not a tautology, but it does not clearly state the action.

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' gives a weak usage context, suggesting it is relevant when dealing with timezone names for clock-related tools. However, it does not explain when to prefer this over sibling tools like timezone or utc-time, nor does it provide any exclusions.

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

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

The description discloses that a network fetch occurs and that only group counts are returned, but it does not mention error behavior, handling of missing or malformed robots.txt, timeouts, rate limits, or any side effects. With no annotations, this minimal transparency 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 very short and free of fluff, which is good, but it omits critical information about parameter usage and output format. It is structured as a single sentence but lacks the substance needed to be fully useful.

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 the description does not explain the structure of the returned group counts, how counts are grouped, or which parameter is required to specify the target robots.txt. With nine optional and apparently unrelated parameters, the description is far from complete for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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

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

Although every parameter has a description, the descriptions are generic and largely unrelated to inspecting robots.txt. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than as the robots.txt location, and parameters like 'city', 'query', and 'zone' have no clear connection to the tool's purpose. The schema is a mismatched grab bag, so the descriptions add little meaningful 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 states a clear action ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and specifies the output ('return group counts only'), but it does not clarify which input parameter provides the URL or how the other parameters relate to the tool. The name helps, but the description alone leaves the selection 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 is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. There is no mention of appropriate conditions, alternatives, or context, leaving the agent to guess.

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 only behavioral hint is 'Key discarded', which suggests no persistence, but the description does not disclose whether the tool returns a boolean, throws on invalid shape, or performs any validation actions. With no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

The description is extremely short and front-loaded: 'Check a Jira issue key shape. Key discarded.' It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to read, though the brevity contributes to ambiguity.

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

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

The description is severely incomplete for a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema. It does not specify which parameter holds the key, what the success/failure response looks like, or any relevant edge cases.

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. However, the tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, and the schema descriptions are often unrelated to Jira keys (e.g., city, feed, zone), making it hard to map a Jira key to any parameter.

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

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

The description states the tool checks a Jira issue key shape, but it is unclear which of the nine optional parameters should contain the key. The phrase 'Key discarded' adds confusion rather than clarifying the input or 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus sibling shape-checking tools like github-repo-shape or figma-url-shape. There is no mention of alternatives 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?

The description discloses that only the HTTP status is returned and that the body is discarded, which is helpful. It does not mention network side effects, errors, or any rate limiting, but with no annotations the key expectation is partially covered.

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 main purpose. It avoids fluff, but it is so terse that it omits important mapping between the purpose and the 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, no required parameter indication, no examples, and no explanation of how the many optional parameters relate to the documented purpose. An agent would struggle to know exactly what input to provide and what result to expect beyond a status code.

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

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

Although the schema has descriptions for all 9 parameters, the tool description does not clarify which parameter holds the docs URL, and the schema mixes many unrelated optional fields with descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check.' The `url` description also says 'normalize or cite' rather than 'docs URL,' creating confusion.

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

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

The description states the core operation—returning an HTTP status for a public library docs URL—and distinguishes this from general fetch tools via the 'public library docs' qualifier. However, it lacks an explicit verb and leaves 'library docs' somewhat 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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. The intended context must be inferred from the tool name and the phrase 'public library docs 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that values are discarded, which is useful, but it omits the return value, side effects, and how the tool handles multiple parameters. This is insufficient for a tool with 9 optional 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation, though it sacrifices necessary detail. The structure is clean and efficient.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the return format, which parameter is used, or how the tool behaves with multiple inputs. An agent would struggle to call it correctly without additional 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, not even clarifying which parameter is the JSON object to inspect. It relies entirely on the schema, which is acceptable but does not enhance understanding.

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

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

The description states the core action ('Count keys in a JSON object') and that values are discarded, but it does not identify which of the 9 parameters carries the JSON object, nor does it differentiate the tool from sibling 'validate-json'. The purpose is recognizable but ambiguous about the exact input.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or examples, leaving the agent to infer usage 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it omits critical behavior: which of the 9 schema parameters are actually used, what happens on invalid input, error handling, or return format. The presence of many seemingly unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) is unexplained, creating confusion. The description is transparent about one behavior but hides the rest.

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—two short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a behavioral detail (dropping query/fragment) without wasting words. This is a model of brevity.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain which parameters are relevant, how to invoke the tool correctly, what constitutes a valid URL, or what the return value looks like beyond the named components. The mismatch between the tool's name and the broad schema is unaddressed, leaving an agent uncertain about correct usage.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds no clarity on which parameter is the primary input. It mentions 'URL' but does not explicitly say the 'url' field is the one used, nor does it explain why the other 8 parameters exist and are 'discarded' or 'checked'. The schema itself is misleading for a normalization tool, and the description does not compensate, so the semantics are poorly conveyed.

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 verb ('Return') and resource (URL), and specifies the output components (origin, host, path) and the dropping of query/fragment. It is not a tautology and gives a concrete function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, which also deal with URLs, so it loses a point for lack of distinction.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or situations where a sibling would be more appropriate. An agent is left to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the many URL-related siblings.

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

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

The description only states that no browser is launched, but it does not disclose what the tool actually does (e.g., HTTP request, URL validation). Additionally, it does not mention that many of the parameters are ignored, which is only implied by their individual descriptions.

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 (one sentence) and easy to read, but it omits essential details about how the check is performed and what the result represents. The structure is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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

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

The description is incomplete for a tool with this complexity. It lacks information about the output format, what 'ok' means (e.g., status code, reachability), and why so many unrelated parameters are present. Without this context, an agent would struggle to use it correctly.

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

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

The schema includes nine parameters, but most are irrelevant to the stated purpose (e.g., 'ref', 'city', 'feed', 'json', 'zone', 'query'). The only relevant parameter 'url' has a description that says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' which conflicts with the tool's purpose of checking if a URL can be opened.

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

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

The description states the tool 'Check whether a URL can be opened,' but it is vague about which parameter is the URL and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser-url-ok' or 'fetch-status' that likely serve a similar 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'browser-url-ok' or 'fetch-status.' No context is given about the appropriate 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?

The description states 'Query discarded' indicating the input is not retained, but it does not clarify whether the tool performs any network calls or has side effects, especially given the many unrelated parameters.

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 action ('Count characters') and then notes the disposal of the query. It is efficient and well-structured.

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

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

The description does not explain why the schema includes eight unrelated parameters when the tool's purpose is to count characters in a search query; this omission could confuse an agent. It also does not mention return format, but that is less critical.

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

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

The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, including 'query' as 'Search text; discarded after the length check'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and the purpose of the other eight parameters is unclear.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool counts characters in a search query, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that count other things (e.g., hn-front-count, memory-key-count).

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives; it does not mention any competing tools or conditions for selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'catalog' implying a static reference, but the schema parameter descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access') suggest the tool performs various checks. The description is silent on these behaviors and is effectively misleading about the tool's operations.

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, but it is under-specified and fails to convey essential information about parameter usage or behavior. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of clarity, so it is adequate but not helpful.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the parameters are for, how the catalog is queried, or what the tool returns. An agent has no basis to construct a 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 description coverage is 100%, so all 9 parameters have individual descriptions. The tool description adds no information about how these parameters relate to the catalog or how they are used. It does not compensate for the gap between the stated purpose and the parameter set, but the schema itself documents each parameter, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a clear purpose ('Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') with a specific noun, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like fetch-status or validate-json, and the parameter schema (9 unrelated fields like url, json, path) does not align with the stated purpose, creating ambiguity about 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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine when to select this tool over fetch-status or validate-json from the description 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded and that the output is a template, but it does not explain side effects, output format, or behavior in edge cases.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. The second clause 'Prompt discarded' is terse but adds relevant behavioral info, though it could be clearer.

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 lack of output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand how to supply input or interpret results. No usage context, examples, or return details are provided.

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

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

Although schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, the parameters are unrelated to the stated purpose and many descriptions say values are 'discarded' or only used for checks. There is no parameter for the actual prompt or template configuration, making the schema effectively misleading.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns a three-step thinking template, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools, though the phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds 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?

The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. It only states what it returns, not why or when it should be chosen.

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 states the basic action, but does not disclose whether the tool makes a network request, what format the returned time is in, how it handles invalid zone names, or that the other eight parameters in the schema are effectively ignored. The single sentence offers minimal transparency beyond the stated action.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and free of filler. However, given the tool's 9-parameter schema and lack of annotations, the description is likely underspecified rather than adequately sized; it could benefit from a second sentence clarifying which parameter to use or the return format.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, and the description is a single line. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., time format, timezone, UTC offset), what happens when the zone parameter is omitted (it is not required), or what the 'discarded' parameters mean for behavior. The agent is left to guess at the invocation pattern and result structure.

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 mentions a 'named IANA timezone,' which loosely aligns with the zone parameter, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It does not clarify that zone is the effective parameter or that the other eight parameters are irrelevant for this tool's purpose, though the schema already describes them as 'discarded.'

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

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

The description states the tool's purpose clearly: it returns the 'current time' for a 'named IANA timezone.' This is a specific verb+resource that separates it from sibling tools like utc-time and iana-zones, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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, when not to use it, or how it differs from closely related siblings such as utc-time or iana-zones. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or example scenarios, leaving the agent to infer the intended 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Current UTC timestamp' without mentioning that all input parameters are ignored or discarded, which is a significant behavior hinted by the schema. The description fails to disclose this critical trait.

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?

It is extremely concise, but given the complexity of the schema (9 parameters), it is under-specified. The single phrase does not convey the tool's actual behavior (ignoring parameters) or its return format. Conciseness is not a substitute for 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is grossly insufficient. The agent cannot determine what the tool returns, why there are parameters, or how to use it correctly. The description is far from complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, albeit unusual ones like 'discarded after the shape check'. The tool description adds nothing about how parameters affect the result. Since the schema already documents them, baseline is 3, but the description doesn't clarify the odd behavior of parameters being ignored.

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 it returns the current UTC timestamp, which is clear and distinct from siblings like timezone or iana-zones. However, it doesn't specify the format or scope, so it's adequate but not excellent.

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 exclusions, conditions, or related tools. The agent has no basis to choose this over timezone or other time-related tools.

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

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

The description discloses a side effect: the body is discarded. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors like network access, file system reads, or error handling. Given the lack of annotations, some transparency is present 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 extremely concise and to the point, containing only the essential function and a side-effect note. No redundant language or unnecessary detail is present.

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 lacks essential context such as return values, error conditions, or expected behavior when validation fails. It also does not explain how the many optional parameters relate to the validation logic. Without an output schema or further explanation, an agent cannot fully predict 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?

The description does not clarify the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It refers to a 'body' that does not correspond to any parameter name, and it gives no additional meaning to parameters like 'ref', 'url', 'city', etc., making their relevance to JSON validation unclear.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool checks whether a body is valid JSON, but it uses 'body' instead of the actual parameter 'json', creating ambiguity. The core purpose is understandable but not perfectly precise.

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 among the many sibling validation tools. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would differentiate it from similar tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not disclose that only the 'city' parameter is used while others are ignored, nor does it mention network calls, output format, error handling, or any side effects. The schema hints at discarding parameters, 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without fluff.

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 having 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description does not explain which parameters are meaningful, how the tool behaves, or what the response looks like. It is far from complete for an agent to correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—it reinforces that 'city' is relevant but does not clarify that other parameters are irrelevant. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (current temperature), a resource (a city), and the method (via Open-Meteo). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like geo-hint or lib-docs-hint, which are about other domains.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a current city temperature is needed. It provides clear context without mentioning exclusions or alternatives, matching the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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 the body is discarded, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it omits other important behaviors such as network side effects, error behavior, rate limits, or the fact that many input parameters appear to be ignored. With no annotations, the description bears the full transparency burden and only partially meets 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 two short sentences with no filler; the purpose and the key limitation (body discarded) are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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

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

Given the large input schema with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain which parameter drives the fetch, how the unrelated-looking parameters should be treated, or what the output shape and failure modes are.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying the 'url' parameter is the target. The schema descriptions clarify that many fields are discarded, and the tool description does not contradict them.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool performs an HTTP fetch and returns status and content type for a public URL, and explicitly notes that the body is discarded. It does not, however, differentiate itself from 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any explicit when-not-to-use conditions. The description implies public URLs are expected but does not state this as a selection criterion.

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 only behavioral detail is that the title is discarded after the call, which is vague and unclear because no title parameter exists in the schema. There is no disclosure of side effects, network access, authentication, or failure behavior.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence—'Title discarded after the call'—adds little value and creates confusion. It is not bloated, but it is not fully purposeful.

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 complex, mismatched schema and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain which parameter is the title, what the response format is, or how errors are handled, leaving an agent unable to call the tool reliably.

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 nine parameters with descriptions, but none of them clearly represent a Wikipedia title, and most descriptions appear copied from unrelated tools (e.g., git ref, URL, city, JSON, path, timezone). The tool description fails to map the actual semantic input to any schema field.

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

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

The description states a specific action and resource—checking whether a Wikipedia title exists—but it does not mention how the title is supplied or why the second sentence about discarding is relevant. The purpose is understandable but leaves a key gap.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions, exclusions, or decision criteria. The description only states what the tool does, not when an agent should select it.

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