HTTP 403 forbidden

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 does disclose that page content is not stored, which is a positive behavioral note. However, it does not explain the primary action (e.g., that it likely makes an HTTP request), any side effects, error handling, or limitations. The note about not storing content is the only behavioral disclosure, which is insufficient for a tool that interacts with external URLs.

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 zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note is concise. It is exactly as short as needed and no longer.

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 4 parameters (none required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the role of each parameter, the expected output format, or how the tool differs from the 10 siblings. An agent would not have enough information to correctly invoke the tool with the right parameters or interpret the result. The description should at least clarify the relationship of json and zone to the core function.

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 description coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to reconcile the parameters with the stated purpose. The schema lists url, host, json, and zone, but the description only mentions returning host, scheme, and status for a URL. It does not explain how json (JSON validation) or zone (timezone) relate to the tool's core function, leaving an agent confused about when to pass these parameters. This is a significant semantic gap.

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: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It also adds a distinguishing behavior note ('Page content is not stored') that separates it from tools that might fetch or store content. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives like normalize-url or http-403, but the core purpose is clear and specific.

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 any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no idea whether to pick this over normalize-url, http-403, or status-catalog based on the description alone.

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

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

The description discloses that no identifiers are retained, which is a useful privacy statement, but it does not explain whether any network request is made, what data is sent, how classification is computed, or what the response contains. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it.

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

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

The description is short and to the point, with no filler. However, it lacks structure such as a clear statement of input, output, or behavior, so the conciseness comes at the cost of useful detail.

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

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

There is no output schema, no example, no explanation of the classification result, and no indication of how this tool fits with the sibling tools. An agent would not know what to expect or how to interpret the response, making the description incomplete for practical use.

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, but the descriptions appear copied from other tools (normalize or cite, validate, timezone, hostname) and do not explain how url, host, json, or zone are used for compatibility classification. The parameter names and formats are present, but their role in this tool is unclear.

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

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

The description says it shows how the request is classified, but does not define what classification means, what categories are used, or how it relates to the tool's name. It is too vague to distinguish from the sibling tools or to know what capability is offered.

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 the sibling tools such as normalize-url, validate-json, timezone, or citation. There is no condition, context, or example that would help an agent decide to call compatibility.

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 a core behavior and explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data, but it does not describe the return shape, error behavior, or whether network calls are involved.

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

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose and 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves an agent uncertain about which of the four optional parameters to pass and what the result will look like. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation without further inference.

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 meaning and does not explain how 'hostname' maps to the `host` or `url` parameters, nor why `json` and `zone` are accepted.

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 and resource: 'Split a hostname into labels.' It also adds a useful exclusion, 'without WHOIS or ownership data,' which clarifies scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' hints at a limitation, but it does not state a selection criterion or name a sibling tool to use instead.

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 discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether it performs read-only operations. The description gives no information about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 but lacks any structure or actionable information. It is a fragment rather than a clear statement of purpose, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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

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

The description omits essential information about the tool's function, expected inputs, outputs, and usage context. For a tool with four parameters and multiple siblings, this level of incompleteness makes 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?

The parameters (url, host, json, zone) each have generic descriptions, but the tool-level description does not explain how they relate to the tool's purpose. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and leaves their role entirely 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 is a noun phrase ('Meaning of HTTP 403') and does not state an action or verb+resource. It is unclear what the tool actually does, and it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'status-catalog' which likely provides status code information.

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 'status-catalog' or 'normalize-url'. There is no context for what problem it solves or how it should be selected.

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 discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or read-only status. The tool could be a simple lookup or an action with side effects; there is no way to tell.

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 and thus concise, but it lacks structure. It does not separate purpose, usage, or output, and the wording is too terse to convey any actionable information. The brevity is not effective because it omits key details.

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

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

Given the complexity of four input parameters and the absence of an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does with each parameter, what output to expect, or how it fits into the broader toolset. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on this description.

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 generic descriptions that do not relate to IANA timezone names. For example, 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' is irrelevant to timezone lookup. The parameter descriptions appear copied from other contexts and offer no meaningful guidance for this tool.

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

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

The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' suggests a lookup or list but lacks a clear verb and resource. It does not specify what action the tool performs (e.g., list, validate, convert) or how the input parameters relate to the purpose. The intended functionality is 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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', nor does it mention any conditions or prerequisites. The agent has no basis for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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

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

The description mentions 'Fetch' implying a read operation, but does not disclose any side effects, error conditions, or the fact that it may require network access. With no annotations, this minimal description leaves too much 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 main description is a single, concise sentence that is easy to parse. However, it omits critical usage details, and the overall structure is undermined by the irrelevant parameter descriptions.

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 far too incomplete: it does not specify which parameters are required, how group counts are computed, what output format is returned, or how errors are handled. Without an output schema or annotations, this ambiguity is critical.

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

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

Despite 100% schema coverage, the parameter descriptions are copied from unrelated tools (e.g., 'JSON text to validate' and 'IANA timezone name') and do not explain how url, host, json, or zone relate to fetching or parsing robots.txt. The descriptions are 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 states a specific action (fetch robots.txt and return group counts), but the parameter list mismatches the purpose (includes json and zone which are irrelevant), creating confusion about the tool's actual 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 given on when to use this tool compared to siblings like normalize-url or validate-json. The intended use case and selection criteria are entirely absent.

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

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

The description discloses the main behavior (dropping query and fragment) but does not mention error handling, input validation, or whether it is read-only. With no annotations, moderate transparency is provided.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded, with two short sentences that each convey essential information about the tool's behavior. No unnecessary words are present.

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 confusing parameter set. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what output to expect, or why unrelated parameters exist, making it insufficient for correct usage.

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 largely mismatched with the tool's stated purpose. Only 'url' relates to the described normalization behavior; 'host', 'json', and 'zone' appear unrelated and confusing, and no clarification is given about their roles.

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 specific function: returning origin, host, and path for a URL, with explicit note that query and fragment are dropped. This is distinct and unambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no context about appropriate scenarios or how it differs from 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 provided, and the description does not mention side effects, read-only behavior, data mutation, or any other behavioral traits. The tool's impact is completely 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 short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices essential information. It is concise but not meaningfully informative about the tool's operation or parameters.

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

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

With no output schema and a highly ambiguous description, the tool lacks sufficient context for correct use. The parameter meanings are unclear, and no expected output or behavior is described.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone), those descriptions appear generic and unrelated to HTTP status codes. The descriptions reference normalizing URLs, validating JSON, and timezone names without explaining how any of these parameters relate to the tool's 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 is a noun phrase ('Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') with no verb or clear operation. It does not state what the tool does, returns, or how it behaves, leaving the 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as http-403 or validate-json. No conditions, prerequisites, or use cases are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only states the basic operation. It does not disclose the response format, error behavior for invalid timezone names, or whether the returned time is local time, UTC offset, or an ISO timestamp.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is immediately scannable for an agent.

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

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

For a simple read-only time lookup, the description conveys the core function, but it leaves gaps: it never names the zone parameter explicitly, does not describe the output format, and does not account for the three extraneous schema properties. The lack of an output schema and annotations makes these gaps more significant.

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 zone parameter's schema description ('IANA timezone name') aligns with the tool description, but the schema also includes unrelated parameters (url, host, json) with no clarification that they are irrelevant to this tool.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like utc-time and iana-zones, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'return'.

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

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

The phrase 'named IANA timezone' implies the tool should be used when a caller has a specific IANA timezone name and needs its current time. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like utc-time for UTC-only needs.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what it returns (a timestamp) but says nothing about side effects, permissions, or error conditions. More seriously, the schema parameters suggest the tool performs unrelated actions (normalizing URLs, validating JSON, etc.), actively misleading an agent about its 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 sentence, which is concise, but it is overly terse to the point of being useless. It does not earn its place because it provides no actionable information beyond the tool name.

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 severely inadequate. It does not explain the relationship between the parameters and the tool's stated purpose, nor does it provide any usage context. An agent would have no way to determine correct invocation or 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 description adds no meaning to the parameters. Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate') have no apparent connection to a UTC timestamp tool. This mismatch means the description not only fails to clarify parameters but contradicts them, leaving an agent unable to correctly invoke the 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 'Current UTC timestamp' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'utc-time', making it tautological. It provides no differentiation from siblings like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', and the schema parameters (url, host, json, zone) are completely unrelated to a UTC timestamp, further confusing 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The presence of sibling tools like 'timezone' and 'iana-zones' makes this gap particularly critical.

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 transparency. It does disclose that the body is discarded, but it gives no details about side effects, error behavior, or restrictions. This is insufficient for an agent to safely infer 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 extremely concise, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action 'Check whether a body is valid JSON' and then notes the body is discarded, which is efficient and clear.

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

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

Given the odd collection of parameters (url, host, timezone) that do not obviously relate to JSON validation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain why these parameters are present or how they affect validation, nor does it clarify expected inputs or outputs beyond the basic validity check.

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

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

Although all parameters have schema descriptions, several are mismatched or irrelevant to the stated purpose (e.g., url 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', timezone 'IANA timezone name'). Only the json parameter aligns with the tool's purpose, leaving the agent confused about why the other parameters exist. The description does not meaningfully clarify the parameter semantics.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking whether a body is valid JSON, with the body discarded. It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from siblings like normalize-url or timezone, though it does not explicitly name the json parameter as 'body'.

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 explain when validation is appropriate, what to do with invalid JSON, or how this relates to the sibling tools.

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