Currency THB

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the notable behavior that 'Task text discarded,' which is valuable context. However, it does not mention whether the tool makes external network calls, requires authentication, has rate limits, or has any side effects beyond returning information.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and avoids unnecessary words. The 'Task text discarded' line is a bit cryptic but still concise. It could be slightly clearer about how the inputs relate to the operation, but overall 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?

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide substantial context. It lists return artifacts but does not explain which parameters are needed for which result, what a valid invocation looks like, or what the output structure will be. An agent would struggle to know what to pass.

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

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

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add meaning to the parameters or explain how they map to the returned artifacts, so it neither harms nor improves parameter understanding.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid).' It also lists the returned artifacts, which clarifies what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is distinct enough not to require that.

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 implied usage is to find a Monid pay-per-call gateway when such a capability is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like web-fetch, normalize-url, or other index-like utilities. The description provides purpose but no exclusion criteria or comparison.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no browser is launched, but it does not say whether a network request is made, how 'openable' is determined, whether authentication is needed, or what side effects might 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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the core function and adds the key caveat about not launching a browser. Every word earns its place; there is no wasted or redundant content.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and nine optional parameters, the description does not explain return values, success criteria, or how the many unrelated-looking parameters relate to the URL check. An agent has too much left to infer.

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 parameters are already individually documented and the description does not need to repeat them. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a clear action and resource: check whether a URL can be opened. The 'No browser is launched' clause helps distinguish it from browser-launching siblings like playwright-url-ok, though it does not explicitly name the alternative or define what 'can be opened' 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 description gives an implied usage cue: because no browser is launched, an agent can infer this is the lightweight check and that browser-based rendering is not needed. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over siblings like fetch-status, normalize-url, or playwright-url-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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Expression discarded', but no expression parameter exists in the schema, and it does not disclose side effects, return value, validation behavior, or what happens to the listed fields. The behavioral clue is therefore more confusing than informative.

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 two sentences are short and front-loaded, but they sacrifice necessary specification. For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Each sentence is present but not informative enough to support correct invocation.

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 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling list dominated by shape-check tools, the two-sentence description is far from complete. It omits what the tool returns, which input should be supplied, and how the fields are validated or discarded. The mismatch between description and schema makes the missing context critical.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100% and each property has a description, the tool description adds no parameter meaning and actually references a non-existent 'expression'. It does not explain how ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, or query relate to 'a+b' arithmetic. The phantom expression undermines the otherwise self-describing 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 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic', which names a verb and resource, but the input schema contains no expression parameter—instead it lists ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query, all described as discarded or checked values. This mismatch makes the tool's actual purpose unclear and fails to distinguish it from the many sibling shape-check tools. An agent cannot reliably know what calc-eval operates on.

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 text explains when to use calc-eval versus siblings like domain-shape, file-path-ok, validate-json, or normalize-url. The 'arithmetic' hint implies mathematical use, but the parameters are unrelated to arithmetic, so any implied usage is misleading. No exclusions or alternatives 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that page content is not stored, which is useful, but it does not mention that a network request may be made, potential failure modes, or how invalid URLs 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 concise and front-loads the core output. It does not waste words, though it could benefit from a brief usage example or input clarification.

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 is incomplete. It does not specify which parameter should be provided, whether multiple parameters are accepted, or the exact structure of the returned host/scheme/status data.

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

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

Although schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, most are irrelevant or confusing for a URL-status tool. Properties like 'ref', 'city', 'feed', 'json', 'zone', and 'query' have descriptions unrelated to returning host/scheme/status, and all parameters are optional with no indication of which is required.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, and adds a meaningful note that page content is not stored. It is specific about the primary output, though the name 'citation' is somewhat opaque and overlap with sibling fetch/status tools isn't explicitly addressed.

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 like fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The note about not storing page content hints at a use case but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool.

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

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

The description and parameter hints disclose that identifiers are not retained, values are discarded after checks, and no disk access occurs, which is useful privacy information. However, it does not explain whether network requests are made, what side effects exist, or what the output/return behavior is, leaving major behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 sentences with no redundant wording. Parameter descriptions are also short and to the point. There is no fluff or 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?

Despite the minimal description, the tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain what the tool returns, how the classification is determined, how parameters relate to the result, or provide any examples. An agent cannot predict the tool's behavior or output from the given 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?

All nine parameters are documented with meaningful descriptions that go beyond their names: 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'IANA timezone name', etc. The schema coverage is 100% and each description adds context about the expected value and disposal behavior, so this dimension is 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 says 'Show how this request is classified' but never defines what classification means, what categories are produced, or what 'compatibility' refers to. The verb 'show' is generic and the resource/result is left unspecified, making the purpose vague.

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 any of the 26 sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases, so an agent gets no help selecting 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. It explains the core operation and what is not included, but it does not disclose whether the tool accepts arbitrary hosts, what happens with invalid input, whether there is any network dependency, or what the returned label structure looks like. The discard semantics scattered through the schema partially compensate, but those are schema details, not description 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word conveys scope: the action, the input type, and the exclusion of WHOIS/ownership data. It is appropriately sized for a focused utility.

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

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

Despite the simple phrasing, the tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools with similar naming patterns. The description does not explain which parameters are relevant, what the return format is, or how to handle edge cases. This is not complete enough for an agent to reliably select and invoke the tool correctly in all contexts.

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 itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already documents parameters like 'host' and notes that many are discarded after a check. The description is consistent with using 'host', though it does not explicitly map the operation to that parameter or clarify why several unrelated parameters 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Split a hostname into labels'. The 'without WHOIS or ownership data' clause clarifies scope and helps distinguish it from lookups that return ownership information. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling shape-checking tools such as github-repo-shape 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. An agent must infer from the name and the host parameter that it is meant for hostname parsing. There is no mention of when another sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the HTTP method, that the URL must be public, and that no body is returned. However, it is silent on redirects, timeouts, error behavior, and what happens when the optional non-URL parameters are supplied.

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 short sentence front-loads the method and output scope with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple HTTP HEAD tool.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the URL/HEAD case. It does not explain how to select among the other shape-check parameters, which fields are actually required to make a call, or what exact status format is returned. This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent selecting and invoking 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 description coverage is 100 percent, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the phrase public URL, which loosely maps to the url property. The baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action and resource: performs an HTTP HEAD against a public URL and returns only the status. This distinguishes it from content-fetching tools like web-fetch. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling URL-check tools such as browser-url-ok or playwright-url-ok, 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 description implies a lightweight, status-only use case but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never mentions alternatives or selection conditions. The usage is only implied by the phrase status-only.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals one behavior ('Path discarded') but does not explain what parsing returns, whether it validates shape, how errors are handled, or what other parts of the URL are used. This is a minimal and incomplete disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. Both sentences carry meaning: the first identifies the scope, the second a key behavior. No filler is present. However, the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's 9-parameter schema, so it is not a perfect 5.

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

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

With 9 parameters, 0 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not specify which parameter receives the Figma URL, what the output shape is, or what 'path discarded' means in practice. An agent does not have enough context to correctly invoke this tool without guessing.

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

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

Although the schema has 100% description coverage for its 9 parameters, the tool description does not map the Figma URL to any specific parameter. The only plausible match is 'url', but its schema description says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which is generic and does not mention Figma. The phrase 'Path discarded' could even be misinterpreted as referring to the 'path' parameter rather than the URL's path, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This identifies the tool's core function and distinguishes it from generic URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings, so it falls 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 description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or domain-shape. It also fails to mention any prerequisites or conditions, leaving usage 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 must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses 'No disk access,' which clarifies that this is a pure shape check with no filesystem side effects. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns, what counts as 'safe,' or how errors are reported.

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

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

Two sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the key behavioral limitation is stated in four words. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should at least indicate the return shape or success/error semantics, but it does not. It also leaves 'safe' undefined and does not address the presence of many unrelated-looking parameters in the input schema.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, and its singular 'path' focus does not clarify why the schema exposes several unrelated parameters. The schema itself already documents each parameter competently.

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 ('check') and object ('path') and adds a behavioral scope ('looks safe', 'no disk access'). It does not define what 'safe' means or contrast itself with sibling validators, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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. 'No disk access' hints at a lightweight shape-only check, but the description never states when it should be preferred over sibling tools or when it should be avoided.

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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Via Open-Meteo' implies an external lookup, but the description does not disclose network dependence, whether other schema parameters are ignored, return format, or any failure/edge-case 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 short and contains no filler or repetition; the output type and data source are front-loaded. It earns a 4 despite being a fragment because 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?

For a tool with nine optional-looking parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It fails to identify which parameter to populate, what the returned coordinates look like, and how this tool relates to sibling hint/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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds the concept 'place,' which maps to the city parameter, but it does not explicitly single out city among the nine properties (some of which are described with unrelated 'discarded after check' semantics).

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

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

The description states the tool's output ('Latitude and longitude') and data source ('via Open-Meteo'), so an agent can infer this is a geocoding lookup rather than a weather or time tool. However, it is a noun phrase without a verb and never names the required input (e.g., 'city'), leaving the 9-parameter schema 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 for when to use geo-hint versus siblings like weather-hint or timezone, and no mention of the condition to use it (e.g., when you need coordinates for a city). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the minimal 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Parse owner and repo' and does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it validates or fetches the URL, how invalid inputs are handled, or what the return shape is. The 'discarded' behaviors are present only in the schema, not in the tool description.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and target. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is immediately clear.

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

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

With nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is not complete enough. It does not explain the role of the non-URL parameters, whether any are required, or the structure of the returned owner/repo result, leaving the agent to guess key details.

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 value by clarifying that the url parameter is expected to be a GitHub URL and that owner/repo are extracted from it, which the url schema entry does not clearly state. However, it gives no additional meaning for 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 states a specific verb ('Parse'), a specific resource ('owner and repo'), and a specific input domain ('GitHub URL'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling shape tools such as 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 phrase 'from a GitHub URL' gives an implied usage context, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives like normalize-url or file-path-ok. It is enough for the agent to infer the main use case, but not enough to make confident routing decisions among the many 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that titles are discarded and that the count reflects 'current' content, but it does not explain whether this involves a live network fetch, potential rate limits, error behavior, or which inputs are actually consumed.

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

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

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence, 'Titles discarded,' earns its place by clarifying a likely ambiguity about whether story titles are returned.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is not complete enough. It never connects the parameters to the operation, states whether any input is required, or describes the return value beyond the implied count. An agent would be uncertain whether to call this with no arguments, with a feed URL, or with some other parameter.

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 one of the 9 parameters has its own description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning and does not clarify which of the optional parameters, if any, are relevant to counting Hacker News front-page stories.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinguishable from sibling counting tools like memory-key-count and search-query-len. The phrase 'Titles discarded' adds a scope clarification, though it is more behavioral than purpose-related.

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

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

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like web-fetch or memory-key-count. 'Titles discarded' implies the tool should not be used if titles are needed, but it does not name alternative tools or provide selection conditions.

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 disclosing behavior, but it only states a noun phrase. It never says what the tool does (return a list, filter, validate), whether it is read-only, or what side effects might exist. This is virtually no behavioral disclosure.

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 but not effectively concise—it is under-specified. A single vague clause does not earn its place because it omits the core action. For a tool with nine parameters and no output schema, this is inadequate rather than streamlined.

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 leaves almost everything unclear. It does not state what the tool returns, how the parameters relate to timezone names, or what 'clock calls' means in practice. This is severely 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each of the nine optional parameters described. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies; it does not need to compensate but also contributes nothing.

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 essentially a tautology: 'IANA timezone names' restates the tool name 'iana-zones'. It adds only 'Common' and 'for clock calls', but no verb or operation, so an agent cannot tell if this returns a list, validates a name, or converts zones. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like timezone or utc-time.

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

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

The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. An agent has no way to know when to choose this tool instead of its 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. It mentions fetching a public resource and returning group counts, but it does not disclose network behavior, error handling, whether parameters are ignored, or side effects. The schema parameter descriptions also imply unrelated behaviors (e.g., discarded values, no disk access), creating confusion.

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 is concise, though perhaps too terse given the confusing parameter list.

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 with mismatched descriptions and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to construct a valid call, which parameters are relevant, what 'group counts' refers to, or what the returned data looks like.

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

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

Although the schema has descriptions for all parameters, they are not semantically aligned with fetching robots.txt. Terms like 'Git ref name', 'weather hint', 'RSS or Atom URL', and 'IANA timezone name' appear unrelated, and no parameter is explicitly identified as the robots.txt location. The tool description adds no parameter-level clarity.

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

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

The description states a clear action and output: 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.' However, it does not indicate which of the many optional parameters supplies the robots.txt URL or host, making it hard to disambiguate from sibling tools like web-fetch or 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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web-fetch, fetch-status, or normalize-url. There is no mention of prerequisites, fallback behavior, or explicit conditions that favor this tool.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful detail, 'Key discarded,' but it does not state what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, or what constitutes a valid or invalid Jira key shape. Key behavioral expectations are left 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 very short and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Both sentences are brief, and there is no wasted wording, although 'Key discarded' is ambiguous without more context.

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

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

The definition is incomplete for a seven-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. It omits the parameter mapping, validity criteria, return type, and error behavior, leaving an agent unable to reliably invoke the tool.

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

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

The schema documents all seven string parameters, so baseline coverage is high, but none of them is a 'key' or 'issue key' parameter. The description gives no mapping between 'Jira issue key' and any schema field such as ref, url, city, feed, host, json, or path, so an agent cannot know which field to populate.

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: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and, combined with the tool name jira-key-shape, distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain-shape and github-repo-shape. However, the phrase 'Key discarded' is cryptic and does not clarify what 'shape' validation entails.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or conditions such as 'use github-repo-shape for GitHub repositories.' The only implied context comes from the tool name, which is not enough for an agent to route correctly.

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. 'Body discarded' is a useful behavioral disclosure, and it clarifies that the response is limited to status. Still, it does not cover redirects, timeouts, error handling, or whether the other schema parameters affect 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 and front-loaded: the main action appears in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a meaningful behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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

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

The definition is incomplete given the large optional schema, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not define the return format for the HTTP status, does not clarify how to supply the docs URL, and ignores the eight other parameters that the schema invites an agent to consider.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema is misaligned with the description: the 'url' parameter is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', not as a docs URL to fetch status for, and the schema also contains unrelated parameters like city, feed, json, and query. The description does not explain which parameter is the intended docs URL, making correct invocation ambiguous.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: returning the HTTP status for a public library docs URL. The 'Body discarded' clause helps distinguish it from full-fetch tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternatives.

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

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

The intended context is implied: use when you need an HTTP status for a public library docs URL. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, which sibling to prefer for generic URLs, or what to do if the URL is not a library docs page.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, but it only states that values are discarded. It does not mention whether the call is read-only, what happens on invalid JSON, what the returned count looks like, or whether any data is retained beyond the call.

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

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

The description is extremely compact—two short sentences—and front-loads the action before the behavioral note. There is no filler, though the terseness borders on under-specification given the nine-parameter schema.

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

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

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the tool needs a fuller description: it does not specify the input mechanism, return type, error behavior, or usage context among a long list of sibling tools. The single sentence leaves too much for the agent to guess.

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

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

All nine parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is met, but the tool description adds no information about which parameter supplies the JSON object or how the other parameters relate to counting keys. The schema itself suggests varied shape checks, leaving the invocation somewhat ambiguous.

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

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

The description identifies a specific verb ('Count') and resource ('keys in a JSON object'), and adds a distinguishing behavioral note ('Values discarded'). It does not relate the tool name's 'memory' to the operation or explicitly differentiate it from sibling validation/shape tools, but the core action is unambiguous.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use memory-key-count over siblings such as validate-json or domain-shape, and no mention of prerequisites or typical call patterns. An agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it does not state whether any network access occurs, how invalid or non-HTTPS URLs are handled, or whether the many other optional parameters are ignored. This is adequate but incomplete.

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

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

Two terse sentences with no filler. The primary output is front-loaded, and the transformation rule follows immediately.

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

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

With nine optional parameters, zero required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves too much unspecified. It never tells the agent which parameter to pass, what happens if none or several are supplied, or how failures are reported. The shorter description works only if the agent already knows the tool's convention.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it does not explicitly identify `url` as the active parameter or clarify that all other fields are irrelevant, and the word 'Query' could be momentarily confused with the optional `query` schema property.

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 verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' It also names a concrete transformation rule, 'Query and fragment are dropped,' which distinguishes it from URL-fetching or reachability-checking 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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this when you need origin, host, and path from a URL without query/fragment. However, no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs siblings such as browser-url-ok, web-fetch, or domain-shape.

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 side effects, return values, error behavior, and network activity. It only discloses that no browser is launched, but does not state whether an HTTP request is made, how redirects are handled, what counts as 'can be opened', or what output the agent should expect.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded with the core purpose, with no wasted words. However, it lacks any structured detail about parameters or usage, which makes it too terse for a tool with nine optional inputs.

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

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

Given the large parameter count, no required fields, no output schema, and a misleading set of parameter descriptions, the description is far from complete. An agent could not confidently determine which parameter to supply, what the tool returns, or how it behaves in common cases.

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

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

Although all parameters have descriptions, many are irrelevant or misleading for the stated purpose (e.g., 'city' as a weather hint, 'json' discarded after check, 'zone' as a timezone). The main 'url' parameter is described as 'normalize or cite' rather than 'check if openable', and with no required parameters it is unclear which input actually drives the check.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('check whether a URL can be opened') and resource ('URL'), but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status. The additional note 'No browser is launched' helps somewhat but leaves ambiguity about the exact checking method.

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 such as fetch-status or browser-url-ok. The only hint is 'No browser is launched', which implies a non-browser check, but this is not explicit or actionable.

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 behavioral burden, but its only explicit behavioral note, 'Query discarded,' is already present in the schema's query parameter description. It does not disclose behavior with multiple parameters, empty input, or the return format, and it adds little beyond the schema's existing 'discarded after the length check' note.

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 action is front-loaded, and the discard note is a separate concise 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?

The description is minimally viable: an agent can likely infer to pass `query` and receive a character count. However, with 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition should explicitly state that `query` is the intended input, that other fields are not relevant, and what the returned value looks like.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level guidance: it never identifies `query` as the relevant field or explains why the other eight optional fields exist. The schema descriptions are individually clear but collectively confusing.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific operation ('count characters') and a specific resource ('a search query'), and it is not a tautology. It is distinguishable from sibling count tools like memory-key-count and hn-front-count by the search-query resource. However, it does not map this purpose to the nine-parameter schema, leaving some ambiguity about what exactly should be supplied.

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, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools. The only usage signal is the implied purpose from the description, which is thin given the large sibling list containing several similar count/shape-check tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says the tool is a catalog; it does not disclose whether inputs are used, whether any state changes occur, what is returned, or whether there are side effects. The schema descriptions mention discarded inputs and 'no disk access,' but the description itself provides no behavioral transparency.

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

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

The text is short, but it is under-specified rather than concisely structured. It reads like a title, not a tool description, and lacks a verb or actionable framing. There is no front-loaded usage instruction.

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 unrelated optional parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of how the catalog relates to the parameters, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. The schema hints at shape-checking behavior, but the description does not clarify what the tool returns or how to invoke it.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema compensates by describing each parameter, including discard behavior and constraints like 'no disk access.'

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 essentially a noun phrase restating the tool name: 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It does not state an action an agent can perform or the resource being acted upon, and it fails to distinguish status-catalog from sibling fetch-status, which also deals with HTTP statuses.

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, what problem it solves, or when alternative tools like fetch-status or normalize-url would be preferable. The 9 optional parameters and no required parameters make the intended invocation even less clear.

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

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

The description explicitly states 'Prompt discarded' and every parameter description reinforces this by noting it is discarded. This clearly discloses that inputs are ignored, which is valuable behavioral transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the template's contents or any side effects, though none are apparent.

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 contains no redundant words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential context, making it minimally useful rather than genuinely helpful. There is no structured breakdown or additional detail that would assist an agent.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description only gives a two-sentence overview. It lacks information about the template's format, when to use the tool, why so many promiscuous parameters exist, and what the return value will look like. This is incomplete for reliable tool 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?

Each parameter in the schema has a description explaining it is discarded, so schema coverage is high. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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

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

The description states a verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is specific enough to know the tool returns a template, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools or explain why this template exists. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds ambiguity about which prompt is meant.

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 context is given about when a 'three-step thinking template' would be appropriate, nor any mention of sibling tools like calc-eval or web-fetch. The description leaves usage 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Current time' and does not mention that irrelevant params are discarded, what happens on an invalid timezone, or any other behavioral traits.

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. 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?

Given nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully guide invocation. It does not specify which parameter to pass, provide an example, or describe the returned time format.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the `zone` parameter is already described as 'IANA timezone name'.

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 exactly what the tool does: returns the current time for a specified IANA timezone. It is specific enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like `utc-time` and `iana-zones`.

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 prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention the relevant parameter or provide an example. An agent must infer that `timezone` is for a named zone and `utc-time` or `iana-zones` are for other cases.

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, but it only says 'Current UTC timestamp.' It does not disclose that the nine input parameters are discarded or ignored, nor does it specify the timestamp format such as Unix epoch or ISO 8601. This leaves meaningful behavioral ambiguity for a no-annotation 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 only three words, with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is maximally concise and front-loaded, which is appropriate for a tool whose core behavior is simple.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is only 'Current UTC timestamp.' It does not explain the return format, parameter irrelevance, or side-effect profile. An agent can understand the high-level purpose but lacks important details needed to invoke it confidently.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool-level description adds no parameter information. Each parameter already has a description in the schema, including notes about values being discarded. The description does not need to repeat these details.

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 identifies the tool's output as the current UTC timestamp, which is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like timezone or iana-zones. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'gets', but the noun phrase still effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or related tools. It simply states the output, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the body is discarded, but does not mention the return type, error behavior, idempotency, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior beyond the single side effect.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences, with the action front-loaded and the disposal behavior stated efficiently. There is no wordiness. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices completeness, which keeps it from a 5.

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

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

The tool has seven string parameters, yet the description does not specify which one holds the JSON body, nor what the other parameters are for. Without annotations or an output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct a correct invocation. The schema parameter descriptions help but do not clarify the tool's overall input contract.

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 a description for every parameter, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the documentation.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that validate URLs, paths, or other resource types. However, the term 'body' is vague and does not explicitly identify the `json` parameter, leaving slight ambiguity about which input to provide.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description, and the unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, path) offer no contextual direction for when to invoke this tool.

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

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the tool makes an external network call to Open-Meteo, is read-only, or can fail under certain conditions. The phrase 'via Open-Meteo' implies an external dependency, but side effects, latency, error behavior, and data freshness are not mentioned. The description carries the full burden here and does not satisfy it.

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

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

The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and immediately communicates the tool's main function. It does not ramble or include fluff, though the brevity leaves out important contextual details that are scored elsewhere.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns, in what format, and under what circumstances it should be used. None of that is present. The description only covers the basic action and source, leaving the agent without essential context for successful invocation and result interpretation.

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

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

Although the schema has descriptions for all parameters, most of those descriptions are unrelated to weather or temperature, e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' and 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'. Only the 'city' parameter seems relevant, but it is not required and its relationship to the Open-Meteo call is not clarified. The description adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the already confusing schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's core purpose: retrieving the current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. It identifies the resource (city), the action (current temperature), and the data source, making the primary intent easy to grasp. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact output format, but the basic purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for appropriate use. There is no indication of expected input requirements, such as whether a city name must be normalized or geocoded beforehand. This leaves the agent without direction on selecting this tool appropriately.

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 uses the two sentences to disclose the key non-obvious behavior: the body is discarded and only status/content type are returned. It omits details like redirect handling and request method, but for a public read-only fetch these are minor.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. 'Body discarded' is a high-signal caveat that earns its place.

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

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

Despite the simple wording, the tool surface is not simple: nine optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and a crowded sibling set. The description does not tell an agent which parameter to supply or how web-fetch differs from fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or playwright-url-ok, making it materially 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond saying the URL should be public, and it never explains how the other eight optional parameters relate to the declared HTTP-status 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 outcome: HTTP status and content type for a public URL. The 'Body discarded' note distinguishes it from a body-returning fetch. It does not explicitly differentiate it from overlapping siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, 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 description implies when to use the tool: when you need status and content type for a public URL. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives despite a sibling list that includes several fetch/check 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 on the tool, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The only behavioral detail is that the title is discarded after the call, which is mildly informative, but the description omits whether the check involves a network request, what the return value is, and how non-existence is signaled.

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

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

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core verb and resource, presenting no filler text. However, it is too under-specified to be considered a well-built concise description, since a key piece of information—how the title is passed—is absent.

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, so the description must explain both input mapping and return semantics. It does neither: no parameter carries the title, and there is no statement about the result format or meaning. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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

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

The schema exposes parameters like ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path, none of which is a Wikipedia title, while the description speaks of a title. The description fails to map the tool's central concept to any schema property, making it impossible for the agent to know which parameter supplies the 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 description clearly states the action ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists') and resource (Wikipedia title), which distinguishes it at a high level from sibling validation tools. However, it does not tie the purpose to any input parameter, and the schema contains no 'title' field, leaving the agent unsure how to invoke the check.

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

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

The description implies use when title existence is in question, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling shape/validation tools, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. Without this, an agent has little basis for tool selection among similar validators.

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