Currency CZK

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that task text is discarded and several parameter descriptions repeat 'discarded' or 'no disk access', which adds privacy/side-effect context. It does not state whether the tool performs network access, requires auth, or how large the returned artifacts may be.

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 compact: it front-loads the primary action, lists the expected outputs, and adds a meaningful privacy note in a short third sentence. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain the call pattern, but it never clarifies how to use the nine optional parameters or why 'task text' is discarded. The undefined term 'Monid' and the lack of any output format or error/edge-case context leave significant gaps for an agent.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema descriptions do add that many parameters are discarded or shape-checked, but the tool description itself does not explain why nine unrelated optional parameters exist or how they relate to finding the Monid gateway.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Find') and names a concrete resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)') with a clear list of returned artifacts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the 27 sibling tools, and the term 'Monid' is left unexplained, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway' gives an implicit use case, so an agent can roughly infer when to call it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does add one meaningful behavior: no browser is launched. However, it does not disclose whether a network request is made, what side effects occur, or what the response represents, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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

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

Two short sentences with no wasted words; the key behavior is front-loaded. It is concise though it sacrifices important explanatory content for brevity.

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

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

A 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations cannot be fully understood from this description. It omits return value, success criteria, the role of the many optional parameters, and how this relates to sibling URL/fetch tools.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each optional parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline because the schema carries the detail.

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 specific operation: checking whether a URL can be opened, and explicitly clarifies that no browser is launched. This distinguishes it somewhat from sibling browser-launching tools, though it doesn't define what 'can be opened' means (syntax vs. reachability).

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 provided, and no alternative tools are named. The phrase 'No browser is launched' hints at a lightweight check but does not tell an agent when to choose this over playwright-url-ok, web-fetch, or fetch-status.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and operational behavior. It does reveal that the expression is discarded, which is a useful privacy-oriented detail. But it does not state whether a result is returned, whether evaluation has side effects, or how invalid expressions are handled.

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, contains no filler, and leads with the core action. It loses a point because it omits essential parameter mapping and return-value information, but as a concise textual definition it is 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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and 9 optional parameters, yet the description does not explain what result to expect, which parameter carries the expression, or what 'discarded' means operationally. The schema/description mismatch makes it effectively impossible to invoke this tool correctly from the provided definition.

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

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

The schema descriptions cover 100% of the 9 parameters, but the description refers to an 'expression' that has no corresponding parameter in the schema. None of the documented parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) is an arithmetic expression, so the description cannot be mapped to a callable input. The high schema coverage does not compensate for this fundamental mismatch.

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

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

The description names a concrete action—'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic'—and notes that the expression is discarded, so it is not a pure tautology. However, it is misleading in context because the input schema contains no expression parameter, leaving the actual purpose ambiguous. An agent cannot tell whether this is a calculator, a syntax validator, or a shape-check tool.

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 the many sibling validators, nor are any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned. The instruction 'evaluate arithmetic' only implies a use case without explaining how to invoke it correctly. The schema mismatch reinforces the lack of usable routing information.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does add a meaningful guarantee that page content is not stored, suggesting a non-persistent read operation. However, it does not disclose whether a live HTTP request is made, how redirects, errors, or timeouts are handled, or any external side effects.

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

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

The description is only two sentences with no filler. The main outcome is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a relevant behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place, even though broader guidance is missing.

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 network-related tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It omits return-value shape, parameter selection guidance, error/redirect behavior, and how this tool relates to sibling URL/status tools.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond referring to 'a URL,' and it does not clarify which of the many optional parameters should be used for the stated behavior.

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

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

The description states a concrete operation: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This gives a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, and the name 'citation' is not tied to the described behavior.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool over the many related siblings such as fetch-status, normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative choices are mentioned. 'Page content is not stored' is a privacy property, not a usage rule.

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. The 'No identifiers are retained' note does add a meaningful privacy/data-retention trait, but the description still does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what processing occurs on the supplied fields, how results are returned, or whether any external calls are made.

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 states the core function immediately and follows with a concise privacy guarantee. There is no redundant wording or filler, though the brevity contributes to the overall vagueness.

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

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

Given nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin to be complete. It does not explain what kind of classification result the agent should expect, how the optional fields relate to each other, when a request is considered compatible, or how this relates to the extensive sibling toolset.

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; every parameter already has its own semantic description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond pointing at a general classification behavior, so it neither improves nor hurts the schema's 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 states a verb and object ('Show how this request is classified'), so it is not a pure tautology, but 'classification' is left undefined: the agent is not told what categories or dimensions the tool produces. The phrase also fails to distinguish this from several sibling tools that classify or validate inputs, such as domain-shape, figma-url-shape, and validate-json.

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

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

No usage context, trigger conditions, or exclusions are provided. The description does not mention any sibling tools or explain when an agent should choose this over the many similar-looking classification tools, so the usage guidance is effectively absent.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful behavioral clue—no WHOIS or ownership lookup—but it does not describe output format, error behavior, network access, or how the many optional parameters are treated.

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 filler. It earns its place, though it could have been slightly more informative without becoming bloated.

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

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

This is a 9-parameter tool with no required fields, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not state which parameter is authoritative, what happens when multiple or no parameters are supplied, or what the split result looks like. The schema descriptions cover individual parameters but do not resolve the overall operational context.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds only that a hostname is split into labels, which points to the 'host' parameter, but it does not explain how the other eight parameters interact with the operation.

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 ('split'), a resource ('a hostname'), and the outcome ('into labels'), and it explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data. It is clear about the tool's core operation, though it does not name or contrast 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, fetch-status, or web-fetch. The negative scoping ('without WHOIS or ownership data') hints at what it does not do, but it provides no explicit selection 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 must carry behavioral disclosure; it does convey that this is a safe HEAD request to a public URL with no body returned. But it omits response semantics (e.g., what 'status' means), redirect/error behavior, and it is inconsistent with the schema's non-URL parameters, making the disclosed behavior incomplete and potentially misleading.

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?

At nine words, the description is front-loaded and free of filler. It is concise but arguably too terse given the number of optional parameters and the mismatch with the schema, so it earns high but not full marks.

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

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

No output schema or annotations are provided, and the tool has nine optional parameters, yet the description only explains one URL-based behavior. It does not say whether the other parameters are alternative modes, ignored, or prerequisites, nor does it describe the returned status format, so an agent cannot reliably invoke the tool for the non-URL inputs.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each optional parameter, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds the HTTP HEAD method and the 'status only' output for the URL parameter, which is useful but not needed to understand the other 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?

States a concrete operation ('HEAD a public URL') and the exact output scope ('status only'), which separates it from content-returning siblings like web-fetch. However, the schema exposes a wide set of additional optional inputs (json, city, path, query, etc.) that the description never accounts for, so the stated purpose only covers one apparent use of the tool.

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 when-to-use or alternative routing is provided. The phrase 'public URL' and 'status only' imply this is for lightweight availability checks, but it does not distinguish from URL-check siblings such as browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, or normalize-url. The usage context is therefore only implicit.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Path discarded' reveals one transformation, but side effects, validation behavior, failure modes, and the return value are all unstated. For a parse/shape tool this may be a safe local operation, but the description does not confirm that.

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

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

Two short sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The second sentence, 'Path discarded,' earns its place as a behavioral detail but is cryptically brief and could have been clarified without adding much length.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, but the description is only eight words long. It does not explain what the tool returns, which parameter must be supplied, or how it handles invalid Figma URLs, so an agent cannot confidently 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a helpful hint that the URL should be a Figma file URL, but it never identifies which of the nine optional parameters is the relevant one, leaving ambiguity with unrelated fields like ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query.

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

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

The description names a specific action and resource: parse a Figma file URL. This distinguishes it from generic URL tools like normalize-url or fetch-status. However, 'parse' is not fully defined and 'Path discarded' is more of a behavioral note than a purpose statement, so it stops short of a 5.

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 resource is specific enough to imply when to use the tool: when given a Figma file URL. But no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives are provided, and sibling URL-related tools like browser-url-ok, normalize-url, and web-fetch could overlap for URL handling.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry side-effect disclosure, and it does at least state 'No disk access.' However, it does not disclose the return type/format, what criteria make a path 'safe,' or that all nine schema properties are optional and mostly discarded.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool whose schema exposes nine optional parameters. 'No disk access' is useful, yet the brevity leaves key operational meaning unstated.

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 validator with no output schema, no required parameters, and no annotations, the description omits the result shape and the disambiguation of which parameter matters. The agent has to infer too much to invoke this 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 the baseline is 3. The description connects the tool to the 'path' property but adds little beyond that; the schema already documents each accepted parameter and the discard 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 a specific action ('Check') and resource ('path'), and the qualifier 'No disk access' clarifies this is a pure validation rather than filesystem I/O. It does not fully define what 'looks safe' means, so it is not a 5.

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 sibling validators such as browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or wiki-title-ok. The sentence only implies disk-free validation; it never states explicit conditions 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 full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the Open-Meteo dependency but does not state whether this is a network call, what happens to unused parameters, whether data is retained, or what the response format is. This is a significant transparency gap.

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

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

The description is extremely short, with no wasted words. However, it is underspecified given the complex schema: a one-sentence description does not explain how to invoke the tool or which parameters matter, so this is conciseness through omission rather than effective economy.

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 9-parameter schema, absence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how the place is specified, what output is returned, what external calls are made, or how geo-hint relates to the broader tool set.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already documents each parameter, including that most are discarded after checks. The description does not clarify that the 'city' parameter is the relevant one for the place lookup, but the schema covers this adequately.

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 latitude and longitude for a place using Open-Meteo, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes geo-hint from siblings like weather-hint and timezone, though it does not explicitly explain the relationship to them.

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 geo-hint versus weather-hint, timezone, or other sibling tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, 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?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only states the intended parse action. It does not explain behavior on invalid/non-GitHub URLs, whether normalization occurs, what is returned, or that unrelated inputs are discarded.

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 one efficient sentence with no filler and the key resource is front-loaded. It is slightly under-specified for a 9-parameter tool, but as a stand-alone sentence it is very 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?

With nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many URL/shape siblings, a one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to call this tool confidently in all cases. It leaves return format, failure behavior, and selection criteria unresolved.

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 the useful clarification that the URL is a GitHub URL and that owner/repo are extracted, but it does not explain the role of the other eight 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 ('Parse'), a resource ('GitHub URL'), and a concrete result ('owner and repo'). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling shape tools like figma-url-shape and jira-key-shape.

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

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

The phrasing implies the tool is for GitHub URLs, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling (normalize-url, browser-url-ok, etc.) would be better for other URL needs.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Titles discarded' adds minimal information, but the description does not state whether the tool fetches live data, what it returns beyond a count, whether the parameters are actually used, or how failures are handled.

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 contains no filler, but 'Titles discarded' is compressed to the point of ambiguity, preventing a perfect conciseness 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?

Despite having 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return format, whether a parameter is needed at all, or what 'discarded' means for invocation. An agent cannot confidently determine how to call this tool correctly beyond guessing that no arguments may be acceptable.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter guidance in the tool description. However, the tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and the schema descriptions mostly say values are 'discarded,' which does not clarify how or whether any parameter should be supplied for this tool.

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

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

The description names a specific operation and resource: count current Hacker News front-page stories. The phrase 'Titles discarded' hints that only a count is returned, though it is slightly ambiguous whether titles are excluded from the output or ignored from the 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 the many sibling tools, nor is there any exclusion or alternative. An agent is left to infer that this is the right tool purely from the 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, or how the many input parameters are used. The schema hints that most parameters are 'discarded,' yet the description omits this entirely.

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

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

The single sentence is undeniably short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not front-load any actionable verb or key behavioral detail, so the structure earns no credit beyond being brief.

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

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

This is a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the tool does, what it returns, and how inputs affect the result; it does none of these. The description is far too incomplete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, but the schema's individual parameter descriptions already document them clearly, even though their relevance to timezone zones remains unexplained.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase, 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls,' which restates the tool's name without stating an action like 'returns' or 'lists.' It gives a hint about content but does not clarify whether this tool lists, validates, or resolves timezone names, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as timezone or utc-time.

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

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

The phrase 'for clock calls' suggests a usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many siblings like timezone, utc-time, or list-related tools. No alternatives are named and no exclusions are provided, 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?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, network access details, or clarify that many schema parameters appear unrelated to the stated purpose. The behavior is ambiguous, especially regarding which parameters are actually used.

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

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

The description is a concise single sentence that conveys the core action without verbose detail. However, the structure is minimal and does not address the unrelated parameter schema, which detracts slightly from overall effectiveness.

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 and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the parameters mean in the context of robots.txt inspection. It is incomplete for an agent to know which parameters are relevant or how to construct a valid request.

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

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

The schema parameter descriptions are wildly inconsistent with the tool's purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name', 'JSON text to validate'). These misleading descriptions do not aid in understanding how to invoke the tool and actively confuse the intended usage.

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 specifies the tool's function: fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like web-fetch and fetch-status.

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 alternatives such as web-fetch or fetch-status. There is no mention of scenarios where it would be preferred or conditions under which other tools should 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the key is discarded after the check, which is a useful side-effect signal. However, it does not describe return behavior, error conditions, or whether the operation is strictly read-only beyond the word 'Check'.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded, with no filler. The second sentence 'Key discarded' adds a side-effect detail, though the overall brevity contributes to the lack of parameter and return 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 no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left without knowing what output to expect (boolean, canonical key, error) and which of several schema fields to supply. The mismatch between the description's 'key' and the schema's unrelated-looking properties makes the tool under-specified for reliable invocation.

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

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

The schema has seven properties with individual descriptions, but none is an obvious 'key' parameter: ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path. The description never explains which property carries the Jira issue key, and 'ref' is described as a Git ref name, making parameter mapping ambiguous for an agent.

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

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

The description names a specific action ('Check') and a specific resource ('a Jira issue key shape'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. It is concise and clear, though it does not specify what the check returns or what 'shape' means.

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 Jira-specific wording implies this is the tool to use when validating or checking a Jira issue key's format. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name any alternatives, so an agent must infer the intended use case.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the body is discarded, but it does not explain that the tool is essentially a shape/status hint, that inputs are discarded after checks, or how the broad set of optional parameters is meant to be used.

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

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

The description is tight and front-loaded with no filler. However, for a tool with nine heterogeneous parameters, two short sentences are under-sized and the conciseness comes at the expense of necessary scope information.

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 or annotations, so the description must explain enough about invocation and return behavior. It mentions HTTP status and discarded body, but it does not cover the other eight parameter types, does not describe selection among optional parameters, and leaves an agent unable to correctly call the tool for most inputs.

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 nine parameters are already documented in the input schema and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The baseline of 3 applies, though the description gives no clue how the varied parameters relate to 'library docs URL.'

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

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

The description names a concrete output (HTTP status) and a resource (public library docs URL), but the schema accepts nine unrelated inputs including city, feed, JSON, path, timezone, and query. This makes the stated purpose incomplete and misleading, and it does not distinguish the tool from siblings 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status, normalize-url, validate-json, or weather-hint. The only implied trigger is 'public library docs URL,' which fails to cover most of the parameters in the schema.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose one key behavior: values are ignored and only keys are counted. It does not clarify whether nested keys are counted or whether the result is a simple integer, and it says nothing about side effects, though counting is inherently read-only.

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: the action and resource are in the first words. It earns its place, though the brevity borders on under-specification.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no invocation example, the description is insufficiently complete. An agent cannot tell how to structure the call, what value will be returned, or whether nested keys are included, so this needs more behavioral context.

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

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

The input schema already documents all 9 parameters in full (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the general rule that values are discarded, which applies to every parameter but does not clarify how the 'json' parameter or any other single parameter supplies the object to count.

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 (count keys) and a clear resource (a JSON object), and distinguishes itself from validation or shape-check siblings by emphasizing that values are discarded. However, it does not explicitly map the JSON object to the input schema's parameters, leaving some ambiguity about what to pass.

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 choose this tool over siblings like validate-json or domain-shape. 'Values discarded' implies a use case where only key presence matters, but no alternative or exclusion is stated.

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, and it does disclose that query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not describe error behavior on malformed URLs, handling of credentials/ports/case, or whether the operation has any side effects, all of which are relevant for an agent invoking the tool.

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

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

Two short sentences with no filler; the main output is stated first and the key transformation (dropping query/fragment) is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description ignores the nine-parameter schema, many of which (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query) appear unrelated to URL normalization. An agent cannot tell which parameters are relevant or how they interact with the core behavior, so the definition is incomplete.

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 parameter descriptions already explain each field. The tool description adds only the behavior that query and fragment are dropped, which complements but does not substantially extend the schema for the nine parameters.

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

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

The description states a specific behavior: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL, and drops query and fragment. This is clear and informative, but it does not explicitly distinguish normalize-url from sibling URL-related tools such as browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling URL/shape tools, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states the function, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It does add one valuable behavioral fact—'No browser is launched'—which prevents the agent from assuming Playwright opens a real browser. But it does not disclose whether a network request is made, what an 'ok' result means, or how errors/failures are represented.

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, and the most decision-relevant constraint ('No browser is launched') is placed prominently after the core action.

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

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

Given nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin: it doesn't identify which parameter drives the check, what the return value looks like, or how to interpret a 'can be opened' result. The schema shows many unrelated input types (ref, city, json, path, zone, query), so the agent still lacks a complete decision picture.

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 all nine parameters, including which are discarded. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries that burden.

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

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

The description states a specific action—'Check whether a URL can be opened'—and a second sentence clarifies the mechanism boundary by saying no browser is launched. However, 'can be opened' could mean URL-shape validity or network reachability, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no named alternatives. With siblings such as browser-url-ok, normalize-url, and fetch-status available, the description leaves the agent to guess when this tool is 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 must carry the transparency burden. 'Query discarded' is a useful side-effect/privacy disclosure, and counting is read-only by implication, but the description says nothing about whether the other eight parameters are ignored or about the result's nature. It is minimally transparent but not contradictory.

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 front-load the core action and add only one extra behavioral note, so there is no filler. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing usage and return details.

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

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

For a simple length-counting tool the description and the query parameter's schema entry are arguably enough to attempt a call, but the definition does not explicitly state the output format or that only 'query' should be supplied, and the 0-required-parameters schema leaves ambiguity when called with no arguments. The gap is noticeable but not fatal for a read-only counter.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. The schema already describes 'query' as 'Search text; discarded after the length check', which matches the tool description, so no further parameter guidance is provided by the description.

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

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

The description names a specific action ('Count characters') and a clear object ('a search query'), so an agent can tell this is a length-measurement tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling count/check tools, but the action and the 'query' resource are specific 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of which parameter to populate, and no alternatives or exclusions. With all nine parameters optional, the agent must infer from the schema that 'query' is the intended input.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says only that the tool is a catalog; it does not mention input handling, return value, side effects, or the ignored/discarded parameters hinted at in the 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 text is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It essentially restates the tool name and omits essential operational semantics.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still fails to explain how to call the tool or what it returns. The input schema's broad, unrelated-looking parameters compound the ambiguity.

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 seven parameters, all with their own descriptions, but the tool description adds no relationship between them and the status-code catalog. An agent cannot determine which parameter to supply; the schema itself does not even include a status-code argument.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase ('Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') rather than a verb-plus-resource action, so it states what the tool is but not what it does. It does not distinguish from siblings such as fetch-status or compatibility.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, and the relationship to sibling tools is never explained.

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 does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait: the prompt is discarded, and each parameter description reinforces that inputs are thrown away after a check. However, it does not describe what the three-step template contains, whether the operation has side effects, or what the return value looks like.

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 zero wasted words: the purpose is stated first and the key behavioral note follows. Both sentences earn their place and the description is appropriately sized for a fixed-template tool.

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

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

For a tool that returns a fixed template and discards inputs, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can infer that parameters are optional no-ops. However, it leaves gaps: no indication of what the template output looks like, no explicit statement that all seven parameters are optional, and no reconciliation of why the schema accepts diverse inputs. Given the confusing parameter list and no output schema, more context would help.

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?

Every parameter already has a schema description (high coverage), and each one explicitly states it is discarded, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage. The grab-bag of unrelated parameters is confusing, but the schema's 'discarded' labels mitigate the ambiguity.

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

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

The description states a specific action and output: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It clearly communicates what the tool produces. However, the seven unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) create background noise about the tool's actual scope, and no distinction from sibling tools is made. Still, 'Prompt discarded' clarifies that the inputs are not meaningful, so the core purpose is 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no alternative tool is named. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' implies the prompt content is irrelevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool's name and 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It implies a read-only current-time lookup, but it does not disclose how invalid timezone names are handled, what output format is returned, or that among the nine schema parameters only 'zone' is actually meaningful for this tool.

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, stating the core purpose in one sentence. However, it is perhaps too minimal given the complex schema, leaving the agent to reconcile the many unrelated parameters on its own.

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

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

There is no output schema and no description of the return value or error behavior. The schema alone does not fully resolve which parameter to use or what happens when the timezone is invalid, and with nine parameters this makes the description incomplete 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%, and each parameter is individually described, so the description does not need to restate them. The description adds only the IANA timezone context, which matches the 'zone' parameter, but it does not clarify the relationship between the tool and the many other present parameters.

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

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

The description states a concrete resource: current time in a named IANA timezone. This is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like utc-time and iana-zones, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb such as 'get' or 'return'.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like utc-time for the current UTC time or iana-zones for listing valid zones. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, so the agent must 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only says 'Current UTC timestamp.' It does not disclose the return format, whether any network call or side effect occurs, or why the tool accepts 9 seemingly unrelated parameters (git refs, URLs, cities). The mismatch between purpose and parameters is unexplained.

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 maximally concise at four words, but it mostly restates the tool name 'utc-time' with only marginally more detail. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, so it does not fully 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain the return value, but it does not. With 9 optional parameters that appear unrelated to UTC time and zero annotations, a single phrase leaves the agent with no idea what to pass, what to expect back, or how this differs from 'timezone.' This is inadequate 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and baseline for parameter semantics is therefore 3. The description adds nothing about parameters, and none are required, but the schema already documents each one clearly. The odd disconnect between the tool's stated purpose and the parameters remains a source of agent confusion that the 3 baseline does not fully resolve.

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

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

The description states a clear resource (UTC time) and operation (get current timestamp), so an agent knows what the tool produces. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'timezone' tool, and it omits the output format (epoch seconds vs ISO string), leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'timezone' tool clearly covers timezone-related lookups, and the description never draws that boundary or states prerequisites, even though the tool takes 9 optional parameters.

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

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

The description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: the body is discarded, implying no retention. With no annotations provided, this is useful, but the description does not clarify what happens for invalid JSON (e.g., return value or error behavior).

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that immediately state the function and the discard behavior. There is no wasted text.

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 minimal for a tool with seven parameters and no output schema. It does not specify which parameter is the JSON body, what a successful or failed validation returns, or when an agent should prefer this over related validation tools.

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

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

The schema provides detailed descriptions for all seven parameters, so coverage is high. The tool description adds little about parameters beyond the generic term 'body,' leaving the mapping to schema descriptions.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') with a clear resource and outcome. It distinguishes this from URL/file/wiki validators by focusing on JSON, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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

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

The use case is implied: validate whether some text is valid JSON. However, there is no guidance on when not to use it, which parameter should carry the body, or how it relates to sibling shape-validators like file-path-ok or wiki-title-ok.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself; it only says the data comes from Open-Meteo. It does not mention that this is an external read-only call, that only the city parameter is used, or that the other eight parameters are discarded, which is critical behavioral context given the 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 one short sentence with no filler and front-loads the core purpose. It sacrifices detail, but for the tiny amount of information it does convey, the structure is 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?

For a tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the irrelevant/discarded parameters, the response shape, or the external dependency beyond naming Open-Meteo.

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 meaning beyond the schema; it only aligns with the city field and does not clarify why url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query, and ref exist.

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 the current temperature for a city and identifies the data source, Open-Meteo, which is more specific than a vague 'weather tool'. However, it lacks a verb and does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like geo-hint.

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 'Current temperature for a city' implies the use case: when an agent needs current city temperature. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling hint 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: it only returns HTTP status and content type, and the body is discarded. This prevents the agent from expecting full page content. It does not mention redirects or timeouts, but the most important behavioral trait is clearly stated.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences with the core output and key caveat front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters, but the description only explains one aspect (URL checking) and does not address the presence of city, json, query, zone, path, and other parameters that the schema often marks as 'discarded'. Without an output schema or examples, the agent lacks enough context to confidently decide which parameters are relevant and how the tool behaves in different invocation patterns.

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 minimal meaning beyond the schema, merely confirming that a 'public URL' is the relevant input. It does not clarify how the other eight parameters relate to the core fetch behavior, but the schema descriptions already document each parameter individually.

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

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

The description states the tool returns 'HTTP status and content type for a public URL' and adds 'Body discarded,' which clearly sets expectations and distinguishes it from a full web-content fetcher. It is concise and specific enough for an agent to grasp the core function, though it could be slightly more direct with a verb like 'Fetch'.

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 siblings like 'fetch-status', 'browser-url-ok', or 'normalize-url'. The phrase 'for a public URL' implies a restriction to public URLs, but there is no explicit comparison or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer the right 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the title is 'discarded after the call,' which hints at no retention, but it says nothing about network behavior, error conditions, return value, authorization, or rate limits. The core result semantics of the check are completely absent.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the main verb, but the second sentence adds an opaque behavior that is not matched by the schema. The brevity is not effective because it omits the essential mapping between purpose and parameters.

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 seven schema parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke the tool, what parameter carries the title, what the return value looks like, or what 'title discarded' means operationally. The agent has no reliable basis to call 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?

Every schema property has a textual description, but none of them reference Wikipedia or a title. The description introduces a 'title' that does not exist in the schema, and the schema parameters appear to describe unrelated validation cases. An agent cannot determine which parameter—if any—holds the Wikipedia title.

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

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

The phrase 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists' names a concrete action and resource, which is clear on its face. However, the input schema exposes seven unrelated fields (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) and no 'title' parameter, so the stated purpose does not connect to the actual invocation surface.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling validators such as browser-url-ok, file-path-ok, or web-fetch. It neither states the intended context nor excludes alternatives, leaving the agent to guess when wiki-title-ok is appropriate.

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