UTC hour

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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, but it does not explain the actual behavior regarding the parameters or any side effects; given no annotations, the transparency is limited.

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

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

The description is concise and well-structured, with two clear sentences.

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

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

The description lacks details on the parameters' roles, output format, and error handling, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional 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 description does not elaborate on the parameters; the schema provides descriptions but they seem inconsistent with the stated purpose (e.g., json and zone), so the description adds no clarification.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which is a specific action and distinguishes it from sibling URL tools like normalize-url.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it does not mention any conditions or comparisons.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description only adds the privacy note 'No identifiers are retained.' It does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving the agent without essential behavioral 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 very short and efficient in word count, but it is too vague to be useful. It lacks essential details about the tool's behavior, making the brevity a drawback rather than a strength.

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

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

The description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about what 'classification' entails, what output the agent should expect, or how the tool integrates with the sibling tools. The absence of an output schema and any explanatory context leaves the agent 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?

Each parameter has a clear individual description in the schema (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), so schema coverage is 100%. However, the tool description does not clarify how these parameters relate to the classification purpose, and no additional meaning is added beyond the schema definitions.

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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify what classification means or what criteria are used. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from its siblings, leaving the agent uncertain about its exact function.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description lacks any indication of typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where this tool would be preferred over similar 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?

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or the meaning of 'without WHOIS or data'. The tool's behavior is not transparent.

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

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

The description is concise but includes irrelevant or confusing text ('without WHOIS or data') that detracts from clarity. It is a single sentence, but the content is not well focused.

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

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

The description does not explain what output the tool returns, how the parameters are used, or what 'labels' means in this context. Given the mismatched parameter descriptions, the tool is not fully specified.

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

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

The schema includes four parameters, but their descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's purpose (e.g., 'json' for validating JSON, 'zone' for timezone). These appear to be copied from other tools and do not clarify how they relate to splitting a hostname.

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 'split a hostname into labels', which is a specific verb and resource. However, the trailing phrase 'without WHOIS or data' is confusing and potentially misleading.

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 like normalize-url or validate-json. No use cases, conditions, or examples are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no indication of side effects, read/write behavior, or whether it modifies state. The description is too vague to infer any behavioral characteristics.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but brevity here results in under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks essential structure and fails to convey the tool's function in a clear, informative way.

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 a minimal description, the tool is incomplete. The agent cannot determine expected behavior, return format, or how the parameters influence the result, making it impossible to use correctly.

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

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

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the descriptions are generic and unrelated to the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' does not connect to 'UTC hour', making the parameter meanings confusing and misleading.

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

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

The description 'UTC hour' is a noun phrase with no verb or action, making it unclear what the tool does. It does not specify a resource or operation, and the parameter names (url, host, json, zone) do not align with the apparent purpose.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. No distinction is made with tools like 'utc-time' or 'timezone', leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

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

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

There are no annotations and no description of side effects, permissions, or read-only behavior. The tool's behavior beyond returning timezone names is entirely 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 very brief and lacks structure. It is a single phrase that does not form a complete sentence or provide any logical flow. While concise, it fails to convey meaningful 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?

The description is incomplete even for a simple utility. It does not explain what the tool does with the given parameters, what the output format is, or how it fits into the larger tool ecosystem. The mismatch between parameters and purpose further reduces completeness.

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

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

The parameters (url, host, json, zone) do not align with the stated purpose of returning timezone names. Their descriptions are generic and do not clarify how they relate to the tool's function. The schema covers each parameter, but semantics are 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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a fragment without a clear verb or explicit purpose. It does not state what the tool does, what action it performs, or what output it provides.

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 or how it relates to alternatives. The sibling tools are not referenced, and no context is provided for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches a public resource and returns only group counts, but it does not explain behavior on missing robots.txt, redirects, network errors, rate limits, or output format. The presence of unrelated parameters (json, zone) also creates confusion about actual 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The conciseness comes at the cost of necessary detail, making it less appropriately sized than it could be.

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

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not explain which parameters are required, what the response looks like, how errors are handled, or why unrelated parameters like json and zone exist in the 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 even without additional parameter explanation. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify which parameters are relevant to fetching robots.txt. The schema descriptions (e.g., 'JSON text to validate') appear unrelated to the stated purpose, and the tool description does not resolve this 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a public robots.txt' and the output: 'return group counts only.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinct from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings or clarify what 'group counts' 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or related sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is for robots.txt inspection, but no context is given about when it is preferred over other tools.

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

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

The description discloses the main behavior (dropping query and fragment) but does not mention any side effects, errors, or edge cases. The mismatch between the description and the parameter list also obscures the actual behavior of 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?

The description is concise and directly states the core functionality in one sentence, with no unnecessary filler or verbose language.

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

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

The description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the described behavior, nor does it provide any context about the expected input format or output structure, leaving significant gaps for the 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?

Only the 'url' parameter is implicitly mentioned in the description, but the other parameters ('host', 'json', 'zone') are completely unexplained and appear unrelated to the stated purpose. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to populate these fields.

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 output (origin, host, path) and behavior (drops query/fragment), but the purpose is somewhat undermined by the presence of unrelated parameters (host, json, zone) that are not explained or connected to the described functionality.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a full URL normalization is needed vs. other URL-related tools among siblings). No explicit conditions or examples are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but gives no information about return format, side effects, errors, or whether the tool is read-only. The behavior is entirely opaque.

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

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

The description is concise in length but inefficient in conveying meaning. It is too terse to be useful, and the single sentence does not clarify the tool's operation or scope.

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 completely inadequate for an agent to understand when and how to call this tool. It lacks essential context about the tool's purpose, parameters, and expected output.

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

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

The parameter descriptions in the schema are generic and appear mismatched with the stated purpose (e.g., url is described as 'to normalize or cite', which suggests a different tool). The description does not explain how url, host, json, or zone relate to HTTP status codes.

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 ('catalog of common HTTP status codes') and does not specify the action the tool performs. It is ambiguous whether it lists, searches, or categorizes status codes, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json or normalize-url.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context or conditions for invocation.

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, but it only states the purpose. It does not describe the output format, whether the time includes offset, or how the zone parameter is handled. The presence of unrelated schema parameters (url, host, json) further confuses 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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured, so it does not fully earn a top score for structure.

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

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

For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the role of the extra parameters, the exact return value, or any constraints, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly without further investigation.

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%, but the description adds no parameter meaning. It does not clarify which of the four schema parameters are relevant to the timezone operation, and the url, host, and json parameters appear unrelated, creating ambiguity. The description fails to compensate for this confusion.

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

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

The description states a specific action (get current time) and a resource (named IANA timezone), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like utc-time or hour-utc, which also provide time-related data, so it lacks differentiation.

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. Siblings like utc-time, hour-utc, and iana-zones exist, but the description provides no criteria for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

There are no annotations and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, performance, or error conditions. The tool appears to be a simple timestamp retrieval but this is not explicitly 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 extremely concise and to the point, using a single sentence with no unnecessary 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?

The tool is not self-contained. The description fails to explain why the parameters exist or how they relate to the tool's function, making the overall context incomplete and misleading.

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

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

The schema has 100% description coverage, but the parameter descriptions are completely irrelevant to a timestamp tool (e.g., 'url' as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'). The description does nothing to reconcile these mismatched parameters, leaving an agent confused about what arguments to provide.

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 UTC timestamp, but it is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'hour-utc' or 'timezone'. The presence of unrelated parameters further muddies the purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'hour-utc' or 'timezone'. The description does not clarify the appropriate context or any prerequisites.

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 to clarify behavior, and the description is misleading. It claims the body is discarded, yet the schema includes four parameters with no explanation of how they are used or what side effects occur. The mismatch between description and schema obscures actual 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 very short, but its brevity works against it because it omits essential information and includes no structural cues. It is concise in word count but fails to provide a coherent or useful explanation of the tool.

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

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

The description is incomplete given the schema and sibling context. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it handles errors, why the extra input fields exist, or how it differs from related tools. The lack of clarity makes it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

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

Although every parameter has a description, three of the four descriptions (url, host, zone) are clearly unrelated to validating JSON. Only the 'json' parameter description aligns with the stated purpose, leaving most parameters semantically inconsistent.

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') but is undermined by the input schema, which includes unrelated parameters like url, host, and zone. This mismatch makes the tool's true purpose 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include normalize-url, timezone, and utc-time, but the description gives no indication of how validate-json relates to them or when it should be preferred.

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