Unix epoch milliseconds

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that 'Page content is not stored,' which is a meaningful privacy-related trait, and it specifies what is returned. It does not cover request side effects, failure behavior, or any permissions, but the core read-only behavior is reasonably conveyed.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary return semantics are front-loaded, and the 'Page content is not stored' clause adds distinct value without unnecessary detail.

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

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

With four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It never explains whether json and zone are alternate modes, prerequisites, or unrelated parameters, and it does not describe the output format or error conditions. The description covers only the URL-related aspect, leaving significant context missing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline for this dimension is 3; each parameter has at least a terse description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify how json and zone relate to the stated 'host, scheme, and HTTP status' purpose, but the schema already documents the individual 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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'Return[s] host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like iana-zones and validate-json. However, the description ignores the json and zone parameters in the schema, leaving the full scope of the tool 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, status-catalog, or validate-json. The intended use for URL citation is implied, but the description provides no explicit when/when-not conditions or references to sibling 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 adds one useful behavioral disclosure: 'No identifiers are retained,' which tells the agent that inputs are not stored. However, there are no annotations to fall back on, and the description still fails to disclose what side effects, if any, occur, what the classification entails, or what happens to the submitted data beyond retention.

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, with no wasted words, and the privacy note is placed second for quick visibility. However, brevity here obscures meaning rather than clarifying it; the first sentence is too generic to stand on its own, so the structure prioritizes form over substance.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and many related siblings, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what output format to expect, what classification categories exist, how the parameters interact, or which sibling alternatives might be more relevant, leaving significant gaps for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already carries a clear individual meaning in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail about how url, host, json, or zone relate to 'compatibility' classification, so it does not exceed the baseline set by 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 says 'Show how this request is classified' but never defines what 'this request' refers to or what kind of classification is performed. The tool name 'compatibility' hints at a compatibility check, but the description does not state whether it examines url, host, json, zone, or some combination, making it indistinguishable without inspecting the schema.

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 of the siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, or domain-shape. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this classification tool is the appropriate choice.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses one key behavior (no WHOIS/ownership data), but given the 4 parameters (url, host, json, zone) it's unclear what side effects occur or what exactly gets validated or discarded beyond the json param's own description. The behavioral profile is thin.

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

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

One concise, front-loaded sentence provides a clear action and exclusion without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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

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

With 4 parameters, zero required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves gaps around parameter interplay (e.g., if multiple params are passed, which one wins?) and around output or examples. It's a minimal viable description but not complete for an agent unfamiliar with 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds a bit of context by clarifying the overall scope, which is enough to keep the parameter semantics adequate and even strong.

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 ('Split a hostname into labels') and a clear exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). It's specific enough to distinguish from a WHOIS lookup, though it doesn't name a sibling or alternative explicitly.

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 explains what the tool does not do (no WHOIS/ownership), which implies when to use it (simple labeling tasks), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or provide examples.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it reveals only a unit label. It does not disclose that the tool returns current time, what inputs affect it, whether there are side effects, or any other operational 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 phrase is short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than productive conciseness. A tool with four parameters and a potential operation needs more than a bare unit phrase.

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 for an environment with no output schema and no annotations. It fails to explain what the tool returns, whether inputs like url/host/json/zone are used, how they interact, and when to choose this over siblings such as utc-time or timezone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with individual descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, but by the rubric baseline, high coverage earns a 3; notably, the parameters appear semantically unrelated to an epoch-ms tool, and the description offers no clarification.

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

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

The description is only a noun phrase, 'Unix epoch milliseconds,' which restates the tool name ('epoch-ms') and names the unit of the result without any verb, action, or scope. It neither says whether the tool returns the current epoch time nor how it differs from sibling tools like utc-time 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. Sibling tools exist for time-related operations (utc-time, timezone, iana-zones), but the description does not say when epoch-ms is preferred or what conditions exclude it.

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, but it merely names the data without stating that the tool returns a list, accepts or ignores parameters, or has no side effects. The four optional parameters are unexplained behaviorally, leaving the agent without a picture of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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

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

The text is very short and free of redundancy, which is efficient, but it is structured as an incomplete fragment rather than a definition with a subject and verb. The brevity comes at the expense of the operational details an agent needs.

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

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

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four optional parameters, the description should clarify whether this is a parameterless catalog, what response format to expect, and how it integrates with clock calls. It provides none of that, only a bare phrase that leaves too much to inference.

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

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

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. However, the description adds no parameter-level context and does not explain why url, host, and json appear in a tool about IANA zones, which is a notable semantic gap even though it does not contradict 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 identifies the resource (common IANA timezone names) and hints at a domain (clock calls), but it lacks a specific verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', making it a noun phrase rather than a clear operational definition. It also does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'timezone' tool, which could plausibly 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, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools. The only hint is 'for clock calls', which is too vague to help an agent decide between this and related timezone 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?

There are no annotations, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It mentions 'public' and 'counts only', but says nothing about network behavior, failures when robots.txt is absent, or why parameters like 'json' and 'zone' are accepted. An agent would be surprised by the schema mismatch.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words and the core function front-loaded. However, the brevity creates opacity, omitting any explanation of the mismatched parameters, so the structure earns only a mid score.

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 4 optional-looking parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description explains neither the role of those parameters nor what 'group counts' look like. This is not enough context for an agent to call 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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, but they are generic and unrelated to robots.txt ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', 'IANA timezone name'). The tool description adds no mapping from url/host/json/zone to the fetch-and-count operation, so an agent cannot determine how the parameters relate to the stated purpose.

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

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

States a concrete action ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and a constrained return value ('group counts only'), which distinguishes it from a full-content fetcher. It does not define what a 'group' is or name an alternative, but the core purpose is immediately legible.

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?

Offers no statement of when to prefer this tool, what it should not be used for, or how it compares to sibling tools such as citation or validate. The 'only' qualifier implies a minimal check, but selection is left entirely to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it does disclose one meaningful behavior (query and fragment are dropped) and implies a read-only transformation. However, it does not explain what happens with the schema's host, json, and zone inputs, which are unrelated to the stated URL behavior.

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

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

Two short sentences with the key output behavior front-loaded and no filler. It loses one point because the concise framing omits the unexpected extra parameters, making the brevity slightly misleading.

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 four unrelated parameters and no output schema or annotations, two sentences are insufficient. The description answers what the tool returns for a URL but leaves the behavior of host, json, and zone completely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It also creates ambiguity because three schema params (host, json, zone) seem disconnected from the described URL-normalization 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 names the specific operation (return origin, host, and path) and resource (URL), and adds behavior by noting query and fragment are dropped. It is clear and not a tautology, though it does not distinguish from sibling normalization tools.

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

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

There is no statement about when to use this tool over alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only inference is 'use when you need URL components,' which is not enough guidance.

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, and it discloses none. It does not state whether the tool performs an action with the input parameters, whether it is read-only, whether network calls occur, or what side effects exist. The description is purely a noun phrase with no 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 this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks the operational substance needed for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool, so the brevity is not a virtue here.

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 four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral guidance. The description does not explain how the HTTP status catalog relates to the URL, host, JSON, and timezone parameters, making the tool effectively impossible to use correctly from the provided description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter schema already documents url, host, json, and zone. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning and fails to explain why these parameters are relevant to an HTTP status code catalog, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' essentially restates the tool name 'status-catalog' without providing a verb or actionable behavior. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like citation, normalize-url, or validate-json, and it leaves unclear how the tool's parameters relate to the 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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'short catalog' hints at reference lookup, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion, and no sibling tools are mentioned.

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 supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but never states whether it makes a network call, what side effects it has, or how the time is obtained and returned.

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

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

A single short sentence with no filler and the core resource front-loaded. It is appropriately terse, though it would earn a higher score with an explicit verb and usage 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not specify the return format, the parameter to use, or how this differs from utc-time. The schema even lists four parameters, and the description does not clarify which are relevant.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; each parameter already has a description. The description adds no parameter-level detail and does not warn that url, host, and json appear unrelated to timezone lookups.

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 resource (named IANA timezone) and the result (current time), which clearly conveys the tool's core function and distinguishes it from the sibling utc-time. It is not a full verb phrase ('Returns current time...'), but the intent is unambiguous.

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

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; there is no mention of the utc-time sibling or any alternative for UTC vs named zones. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the one-line 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states the output is a current UTC timestamp but does not specify the format (e.g., ISO string versus Unix seconds), whether the optional parameters affect the result, or whether any side effects occur.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. It loses a point because it is so terse that it omits an explicit verb and important behavioral context, making it efficient but slightly under-specified.

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

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

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description provides only a five-word statement. It omits output format, parameter relevance, and differentiation from sibling time-related tools, which is inadequate for confident 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 each parameter has its own description and the baseline is 3. However, the tool description does not explain why utc-time accepts unrelated-looking parameters like url, host, json, and zone, leaving their role in this tool unclear.

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

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

The description 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly conveys that the tool returns the current time in UTC, so an agent can understand the core purpose. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate it from close siblings like epoch-ms 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as epoch-ms, timezone, or iana-zones. The purpose implies usage for current UTC time, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons.

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, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: 'The body is discarded' signals that the JSON input is not retained. However, it fails to disclose what happens on success or failure—whether the tool returns a boolean, an error, or something else—so key behavioral context is missing.

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 two-clause sentence with zero filler: it front-loads the purpose ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and immediately follows with a behavioral consequence ('The body is discarded'). Every word earns its place.

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

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

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a 4-parameter schema with three parameters (url, host, zone) unrelated to the stated purpose. The description does not specify the return behavior, does not flag the extraneous parameters, and does not fully equip an agent to invoke or interpret 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 description coverage is 100%, and the 'json' parameter description even repeats the discard behavior, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. The main weakness is that the description does not connect 'body' to the 'json' parameter or explain why url, host, and zone appear in a JSON-validation tool, leaving an obvious ambiguity unresolved.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling tools oriented at URLs, hosts, and timezones. However, 'body' is slightly ambiguous because the schema's relevant parameter is named 'json,' and no sibling or relationship is named explicitly.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use validate-json versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. The sibling tools are not mentioned, and the only additional sentence ('The body is discarded') describes behavior rather than usage context.

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