HTTP 204 no-content

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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which addresses one potential side effect. However, it does not mention any network behavior, caching, or other residual effects. Given no annotations exist, this partial transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 that avoids redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core function and a key limitation, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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 leaves significant gaps given the sibling tools and parameter list. It does not explain why json and zone parameters exist, nor does it specify the output format beyond naming the three data points. Without an output schema, the agent lacks full context for interpreting results.

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 individually meaningful (e.g., 'URL to normalize or cite'), but they do not cohere with the stated purpose. The presence of 'json' and 'zone' parameters is unexplained and seems unrelated to returning host, scheme, and HTTP status. This misalignment undermines the semantic clarity of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It specifies the exact data returned and the target resource (a URL). The additional note that page content is not stored further clarifies the tool's scope.

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

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

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any situation-specific use cases or contrast with sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is 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?

The only behavioral detail is 'No identifiers are retained,' which addresses privacy but not what the tool actually does beyond classification. There is no mention of return format, side effects, or how inputs are processed.

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 avoids unnecessary wording. The privacy note is relevant, and the content is front-loaded with the main action. It is concise, though it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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

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

The description is insufficient for an agent to understand what 'classification' means or what the tool returns. It lacks context about the tool's role in the broader set of operations, especially given the varied sibling 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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema, covering 100% of them. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning to these parameters, 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 'Show how this request is classified,' but 'classified' is ambiguous and not tied to any specific outcome or domain. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, which have clearer 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or scenarios that would make it the preferred choice among the listed 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 states the read-only operation ('split') and a boundary ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose the output shape, how the four input parameters are handled, or error behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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

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

A single sentence with no filler; the qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' earns its place by narrowing scope. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is terse.

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

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

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain what the returned labels look like, how to choose among url/host/json/zone, or edge cases such as IDN or trailing dots. This is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 baseline 3 applies. The parameter descriptions are generic and appear reused from sibling tools (e.g., url 'to normalize or cite', json 'to validate; discarded'), and the tool description does not clarify which parameter domain-shape expects. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Split') and object ('hostname'), and specifies the output ('labels'). It is distinct from siblings like normalize-url or validate-json by focusing on hostname decomposition, though it does not name a sibling explicitly. The negative clause 'without WHOIS or ownership data' helps set scope.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to an alternative tool. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies a scenario where only syntactic shape is needed, but it doesn't tell the agent when to prefer this over e.g. normalize-url or a WHOIS-style tool. Sibling names are not mentioned, leaving selection 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?

No annotations are present, and the description discloses nothing about side effects, safety, or behavior. The tool's actual behavior is entirely opaque, especially given the mismatch between the name/description and the parameters.

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, which is concise, but it lacks substance and fails to convey the tool's function. Conciseness without informativeness is not effective.

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 contextually incomplete: the description does not explain the tool's purpose, the parameters are mismatched with the name/description, and there is no output schema. An agent cannot determine what this tool does or how to call it correctly.

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

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

While the schema has 100% parameter description coverage, the descriptions are recycled from other tools (url normalize/cite, json validate, zone IANA timezone) and do not relate to 'HTTP 204'. The parameters are documented but their connection to the tool's purpose is nonexistent, 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 'Meaning of HTTP 204.' is a noun phrase, not a clear statement of what the tool does. It fails to specify an action or resource, and the parameters (url, host, json, zone) are completely unrelated to HTTP 204, making the tool's purpose ambiguous and confusing.

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 its siblings (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json, timezone). The description offers no context for when the tool should be invoked, leaving the agent without direction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only names a category of data. It does not say whether the tool returns a list, validates a zone, requires a parameter, or has any side effects.

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

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

The description is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks the action, behavior, and parameter context needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

The tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no operational context. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how the parameters are used, or when to choose it over the timezone-related siblings.

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 description adds no parameter meaning. The description does not help reconcile why url, host, and json parameters appear in a timezone-names tool, but the schema itself documents each parameter.

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, not a verb phrase: it says 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' but never states what invoking the tool does. It essentially restates the tool name 'iana-zones' as 'IANA timezone names,' making it close to a tautology with only the vague 'for clock calls' context added.

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 siblings like timezone or utc-time. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a use context, but it is not explained and no alternatives or exclusions 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 bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It says 'Fetch' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, potential redirects, timeouts, error handling, or any rate limits or auth requirements. This lack of detail is a gap.

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

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

The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the primary purpose without extraneous words. It is well-structured 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 tool lacks an output schema and the description only vaguely mentions 'group counts'. Combined with the irrelevant parameter descriptions, an agent would not understand how to provide inputs (e.g., which parameter specifies the domain) or what the exact return format is. Critical context is missing.

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

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

The parameter descriptions are clearly mismatched with the tool. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' (relevant to normalize-url), 'json' text is to be 'validated; discarded' (relevant to validate-json), and 'zone' is 'IANA timezone name' (relevant to timezone tools). None of these make sense for fetching robots.txt, leaving the actual meaning of the parameters unexplained.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and the target resource ('public robots.txt') and the output ('group counts only'), which distinguishes it from other 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or conditions that would favor this over other sibling tools.

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

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

The description discloses one key behavior: dropping query and fragment. However, with no annotations, it does not explain potential side effects, error handling for invalid URLs, or whether the operation is read-only. This is partial transparency but not comprehensive.

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, dense sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and front-loads the primary action.

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

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

The tool is incomplete for an agent because the parameter list includes fields that are not explained by the description and appear irrelevant to URL normalization. The mismatch between the description and schema prevents an agent from understanding how to invoke the tool correctly, making it contextually 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 description mentions only the 'url' parameter, yet the schema includes 'host', 'json', and 'zone' with unrelated descriptions (e.g., JSON validation, timezone). There is a direct contradiction: the description says it returns 'host', but 'host' is an input parameter. The description adds no meaning to these parameters, and the schema itself is internally inconsistent with the tool's 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 clearly states the tool's function: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly mentions that query and fragment are dropped. This is a specific verb-resource pair with no ambiguity about its primary 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 its siblings (e.g., validate-json, timezone). The description does not mention alternative tools or conditions under which this tool should be preferred, leaving selection 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it makes network calls, or any side effects. The only hint is 'Short catalog' implying limited coverage, which is minimal.

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 appropriately brief at one sentence, but it is under-informative. It is concise without being substantive, leaving the agent to guess at 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a schema containing four unrelated parameters, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or any behavioral details needed to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions (url, host, json, zone) appear copy-pasted from other tools (normalize-url, validate-json, timezone) and do not align with a catalog of HTTP status codes. The description adds no clarifying meaning about how these parameters relate to the tool's purpose, creating 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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' conveys that this is a reference tool for status codes, but it lacks a specific action verb (e.g., lookup, retrieve, list). It also does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'http-204', which may overlap in 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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like http-204, citation, or other siblings. There is no 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' language.

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 gives no indication of side effects or behavioral expectations, and there are no annotations to fill that gap. While one might assume it's read-only, this is not explicitly stated, leaving ambiguity.

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 unnecessary words or repetition. It effectively conveys the core purpose without clutter.

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 presence of sibling tools like utc-time and the confusing schema fields, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the extraneous parameters, how to invoke the tool, or how it differs from related tools, leaving the agent with insufficient 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 schema includes unrelated parameters (url, host, json) with descriptions that do not align with a timezone lookup, and the description does not clarify that only 'zone' is relevant. This creates confusion about which parameters are actually required or optional.

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 that the tool returns the current time in a named IANA timezone, which is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like utc-time, though the resource (timezone) is apparent.

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 utc-time. The description does not mention any conditions or contexts for its use, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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 behavioral traits. It only states the output is a current UTC timestamp, but gives no information about output format, side effects, or edge cases. The presence of irrelevant parameters further obscures expected 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, which is a positive, but it lacks any structure or additional helpful context. It is a single phrase with no breakdown of behavior, parameters, or typical usage, so the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 very low complexity of the intended tool, the description should fully cover it, but it fails to explain the irrelevant parameters or the output format. The presence of unrelated schema fields makes the tool definition contextually incomplete and confusing, preventing an agent from using it correctly.

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

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

The input schema includes four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with descriptions that are clearly unrelated to returning the current UTC timestamp. These seem copied from other tools and create a stark mismatch with the stated purpose. The description adds no clarification, making the parameters misleading and likely to cause incorrect usage.

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

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

The description 'Current UTC timestamp.' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb-resource pairing. It is unambiguous and easily distinguishes from sibling tools like 'timezone' which likely converts timezones rather than returning the current 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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'timezone' or other utilities. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or fallback conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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 that the body is discarded, but does not mention other potential side effects such as network requests, URL handling, or timezone interactions that the schema parameters imply. The behavior is under-specified.

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 to the point, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is concise but not sufficiently informative to resolve the ambiguity created by the schema mismatch.

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 lacks an output schema, examples, or additional context. The description and schema are contradictory, and the tool cannot be used reliably without further clarification on how the parameters relate to the stated purpose.

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, the descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's purpose (e.g., 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name'). Only 'json' aligns with the stated purpose, leaving the other parameters unexplained and 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 states the action (check if a body is valid JSON, discard it), but does not clarify what 'body' refers to. The input schema includes unrelated parameters (url, host, zone), making the tool's actual 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 suggest overlapping functionality (e.g., normalize-url, status-catalog), but no differentiation is offered.

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