HTTP 201 created

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that page content is not stored, which is useful, but it omits other important behaviors: whether it fetches the URL, what happens with the host/json/zone parameters, and the exact return structure. The description is too terse to convey the tool's full 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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a relevant caveat. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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

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

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return values and the role of each parameter. It partially does so by listing host, scheme, and HTTP status, but it fails to explain the purpose of the other parameters (host, json, zone) or how they influence the output. Given the tool's apparent complexity (4 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only implies that 'url' is the primary input. It does not clarify how 'host', 'json', or 'zone' affect the result, so the description provides minimal added semantic value.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('a URL'), and specifies the exact outputs: host, scheme, and HTTP status. It also adds a clarifying note about not storing content. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like normalize-url or status-catalog, which might have overlapping purposes.

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 its siblings. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context solely from the tool name and description, which is insufficient given the number of similar-looking tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that identifiers are not retained, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or what 'classified' means operationally.

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

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

The description is short and avoids redundancy, but it is not front-loaded with useful information. The brevity sacrifices substance without making the tool's purpose clearer.

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

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

There is no output schema and no explanation of what a classification result looks like. An agent would not know what inputs to provide or what response to expect from this 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 already describes all four parameters with individual explanations, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It also does not clarify how url, host, json, and zone relate to the compatibility classification.

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' does not name a clear verb or resource. It hints at classification but leaves unclear what is being classified or why 'compatibility' is the relevant tool.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone. The description does not explain what type of request or inputs are 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does not do (WHOIS/ownership), but does not disclose the return format, error handling, or how it handles the various input parameters. The schema notes that 'json' is 'discarded after the check', but the tool description itself omits such behavioral details.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no redundant words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices necessary detail about parameters and expected usage. Still, it earns a 4 for its efficient 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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain the tool's behavior more thoroughly. With four optional parameters and no clarity on how they are used or what the tool returns, the description is incomplete. It does not cover edge cases, required inputs, or the output format, leaving the agent under-informed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a descriptive string in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics and does not clarify how the four parameters relate to each other (e.g., alternatives or required combinations). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the 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 clear action ('Split a hostname into labels') and explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data, distinguishing it from those concerns. However, the input schema includes fields like 'json' and 'zone' that are not explained by the description, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual scope. The purpose is not a tautology but is vague about how the unrelated parameters fit.

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 its siblings such as normalize-url or validate-json. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' only clarifies what it does not do, not when it should be selected. No alternatives or conditions 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?

There are no annotations, and the description offers no details about side effects, return values, or processing behavior. The tool's runtime characteristics are 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 extremely concise (one short phrase), but it omits essential information about the tool's function. Brevity without content does not qualify as effective 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?

Given the multiple parameters and absence of an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to state what action is performed, what output is returned, or how the parameters are used.

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 parameter descriptions exist and cover 100% of the schema, the tool description does not explain how parameters like 'json' or 'zone' relate to the stated meaning of HTTP 201. The mismatch between the description and parameters undermines the usefulness of the parameter metadata.

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

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

The description is only 'Meaning of HTTP 201.' which is vague and does not mention the actual operations implied by the parameters (e.g., URL normalization, JSON validation, timezone handling). The purpose is unclear and potentially misleading given the parameter list.

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 siblings like validate-json or normalize-url. The description gives no context for appropriate 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?

The description reveals no behavioral aspects such as return format, side effects, rate limits, or required permissions. With no annotations present, this lack of transparency leaves the agent fully in the dark about what to 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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, so it is concise. However, it is too terse to convey essential meaning and lacks any structure that would help an agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 four parameters and a potentially ambiguous purpose, the description is far from complete. It does not mention the output format, how the parameters are used, or what distinguishes this tool from related tools, leaving critical gaps.

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

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

The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema and does not explain how the parameters relate to the stated purpose.

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

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

The description states a purpose ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') but is vague and does not explain how the input parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to that purpose. It is unclear whether the tool returns a list, validates a zone, or performs some other operation.

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 like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The description does not mention any specific conditions or use cases that would help an agent choose 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to mention any side effects, network implications, failure modes, or response details. The tool likely performs a network fetch, but this is only implied. No information about error handling or return structure is given.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main action. However, conciseness here borders on under-specification, but the structure itself is clean.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain what 'group counts' means, how the parameters are used, or what the expected response looks like. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly with only this description and 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no value in explaining how the parameters map to the tool's purpose. The schema descriptions are generic ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'IANA timezone name') and appear unrelated to fetching robots.txt. The description does not clarify the roles of 'json' or 'zone', creating confusion rather than resolving it.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('public robots.txt') with a clear outcome ('return group counts only'). It is unambiguous about the tool's primary function, though it does not mention any sibling tools or how this differs from them.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without any context on conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to guess when to select this tool among the many 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful for the URL case, but it does not describe the behavior when other parameters are supplied (e.g., what happens when 'json' is passed? 'host'? 'zone'?). The tool appears to be multi-purpose, yet the description only covers one behavior, leaving the rest 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: two sentences with no fluff. The primary behavior is stated upfront. However, it omits critical information about the other parameters, so while concise, it is not complete. Still, the brevity is a positive.

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 four parameters that seem to represent distinct operations (URL normalization, host resolution, JSON validation, timezone handling), the description is severely incomplete. It only explains the URL path and provides no output schema or further context for the other modes. An agent cannot correctly call this tool for non-URL inputs based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema descriptions cover all parameters (100%), but the tool description does not explain how the parameters relate or which to use in which context. The description focuses solely on 'url' and ignores 'host', 'json', and 'zone', implying they are irrelevant even though the schema suggests they trigger different behaviors. This is misleading and fails to add meaning beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment. However, the input schema includes four distinct parameters (url, host, json, zone) that appear to represent separate functionalities (e.g., validate-json, timezone), and the description does not acknowledge these alternate modes or differentiate them from siblings like validate-json or timezone. Thus the purpose is clear only for the URL case, not for the tool as a whole.

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 its siblings. The description does not mention that it can also handle host, JSON, or timezone inputs, nor does it state when to prefer this tool over validate-json or timezone. An agent would be unaware of the alternative use 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Short catalog' without indicating whether the tool returns data, modifies anything, or has side effects. The presence of parameters like url, host, json, and zone is unexplained, leaving the actual behavior opaque.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It lacks any structure, front-loading of key actions, or context. Conciseness is not valuable when the result is ambiguity.

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

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

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with the inputs, what it returns, or when to use it. An agent has insufficient information to call it correctly or understand its behavior.

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

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

The input schema has clear descriptions for each parameter (url, host, json, zone), but these parameters appear entirely unrelated to HTTP status codes. The tool description does not connect them to the catalog's purpose, and the schema descriptions do not explain how they are used. The 100% schema coverage provides a baseline, but the mismatch between parameters and purpose reduces the usefulness of the descriptions.

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

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

The description states the resource ('HTTP status codes') and indicates a catalog, but it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource. It does not specify an action like 'returns' or 'displays', and it does not distinguish itself from siblings that also deal with HTTP or URLs. The purpose is identifiable but not precise.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. No mention of scenarios, alternatives, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine when this is the appropriate 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 behavior for invalid timezone names, whether the extra schema parameters are ignored, or if any side effects occur. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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

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

The description is one concise sentence with no unnecessary wording. It is structurally clean and easy to parse.

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

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

The description is incomplete in context: it does not mention expected return format, error handling, or the fact that most schema properties are irrelevant. The mismatched schema creates significant confusion for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

The schema includes four parameters, but only zone is relevant to the described purpose. The url, host, and json parameters appear copy-pasted from unrelated tools and have misleading descriptions, with no clarification that they are not used.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. It is specific enough to distinguish 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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. The description implies a named timezone is needed but does not explicitly clarify selection criteria.

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

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

There are no annotations to supplement the description. The description only says it returns a UTC timestamp, but it fails to disclose how the input parameters factor into the behavior (e.g., whether they are ignored, used for formatting, or cause errors). This lack of transparency could mislead an agent.

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 main purpose, but it omits essential information about the parameters. While succinctness is acceptable, the lack of detail makes it poorly structured for an agent to understand the tool's full interface.

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 four input parameters, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what these parameters do, why they exist, or how they affect the output. An agent cannot determine the correct usage or whether this tool is even appropriate for a task requiring a timestamp.

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 are clearly unrelated to a UTC timestamp tool (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' 'JSON text to validate'). The tool description does not explain these parameters or their relevance, and the schema descriptions are contradictory to the tool's stated purpose, offering no meaningful guidance.

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 'Current UTC timestamp,' which clearly indicates the tool returns the current UTC time. However, it does not explain why the input schema includes four parameters that are seemingly unrelated to returning a timestamp, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual 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 versus the sibling tools, such as 'timezone' or 'validate-json.' It does not mention conditions for use, nor does it clarify whether the input parameters are required or optional.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the body is discarded, which clarifies no persistence, but it does not explain the return value (e.g., boolean, error) or side effects. The presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, zone) further obscures behavior—whether they are inputs or ignored. This is insufficient for an agent to know how the tool behaves.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler, directly stating the purpose and the disposal behavior. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

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

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

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify the return type, how to interpret results, or what to do with the extra parameters. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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

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

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. However, the tool description adds no value beyond the schema and even introduces ambiguity by referring to 'body' without mapping it to the 'json' parameter. The roles of 'url', 'host', and 'zone' remain unexplained in the description, leaving the agent unsure why they exist for a JSON validation tool.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and identifies the resource (JSON body). It distinguishes from siblings since no other tool appears to do JSON validation. However, the use of 'body' is ambiguous given the schema includes 'url', 'host', and 'zone' which are not clearly related to JSON validation, creating potential confusion about which input is being validated.

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 exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. For a tool with unrelated sibling tools, the description should at least clarify that it is the go-to for JSON validation, but it does not.

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