HTTP 502 bad-gateway

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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is a key behavioral trait. However, other behaviors such as network requests, error handling, or rate limits are not mentioned. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden but only partially covers 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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional note about storage is placed second, maintaining 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 explanation for three of the four parameters and does not describe the output format or error conditions. Given the complexity of having multiple parameters, this is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning for the host, json, or zone parameters; it only mentions url. Thus it does not go 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 clearly states the function: returning host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. The additional note that page content is not stored provides a distinguishing behavior.

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 relative to siblings like normalize-url or status-catalog. The description only states the function without context or 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?

The statement 'No identifiers are retained' gives a hint about privacy, but there is no mention of side effects, permissions, or any other behavioral aspects. With no annotations, the description leaves most behavioral expectations undisclosed.

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 its brevity comes at the expense of clarity. It is not verbose, yet it fails to convey essential information. The structure is acceptable but the content is insufficient.

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 or explanation of what the classification result looks like. The description omits any details about return values, success/failure conditions, or examples, leaving the tool's behavior largely undefined.

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 lists parameters with generic descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') that are not specific to this tool's purpose. The description does not clarify how url, host, json, or zone are used in classification, so parameter semantics are 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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify what kind of classification is performed, nor does it distinguish the tool from siblings like normalize-url or validate-json. The resource and action are unclear.

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 any alternative. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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 bears the full burden. It only states an action and a negative scope ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), but provides no information about side effects, read-only nature, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or filler.

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

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

The description is severely underspecified for a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema. It does not describe the output format, error conditions, or the purpose of unrelated parameters, leaving an agent without enough context to use 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 already has descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description does not meaningfully clarify how the parameters relate to the operation; for instance, it does not explain why 'json' and 'zone' are present when the tool is about splitting a hostname.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action (split a hostname into labels) and resource (hostname). However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, which could also involve parsing or processing URLs/hostnames.

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

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

The description gives minimal implied usage (pass a hostname) but does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings, nor does it clarify which of the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) are relevant or required. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, output behavior, or operational constraints. It discloses none of these.

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 concise, but brevity is not useful here because it omits essential information. The single sentence does not earn its place as a functional tool description.

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 unrelated schema parameters and lack of output information, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would not know how to invoke the tool or interpret its 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?

The description adds no meaning to the input schema. Moreover, the schema properties (url, host, json, zone) appear unrelated to the stated 'Meaning of HTTP 502' purpose, creating 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 502' is a noun phrase rather than an action-oriented statement. It vaguely identifies the topic but does not specify what the tool actually does with the supplied parameters, and it fails to distinguish itself clearly from sibling tools like status-catalog.

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 status-catalog or validate-json. The description provides no context about appropriate invocation conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, read-only status, authentication needs, or behavior regarding the odd set of parameters (url, host, json, zone). The description carries the full burden, but it offers no behavioral transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant wording or filler. It is front-loaded with the core topic ('Common IANA timezone names'), though the phrase 'for clock calls' is vague and reduces overall informativeness.

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 only a terse noun-phrase description, the tool leaves critical context missing: what it returns, whether it accepts all four parameters or only one, and how it relates to the sibling tools. This is insufficient for reliable agent 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?

The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description itself adds no extra meaning about how parameters interact or why fields like 'json' or 'url' are relevant to IANA timezone names.

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

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

The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, so it does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., returns, lists, or validates). It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'normalize-url', leaving the agent to guess the tool's exact role.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention relevant situations, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'timezone' or 'validate-json', so an agent has no decision-making support.

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 for behavior. It states that only group counts are returned and that the target is public, but it omits the return format, error behavior, missing robots.txt handling, redirects, or whether the full file is internally fetched.

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 that front-loads the main action and output. It is concise and contains no filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the input parameters, the shape of the returned group counts, error cases, or operational details such as redirects or robot exclusion, leaving important context 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 input schema contains four parameters, but the descriptions are largely unrelated to fetching robots.txt: url is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', json is for validation, and zone is a timezone. Only host is plausibly relevant, and the description does not explain how any parameter is 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 action (fetch), the resource (public robots.txt), and the output (group counts only). It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling tools, though it does not specify how the target URL or host is supplied.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of when it is appropriate or inappropriate. The phrase 'group counts only' implies a reduced-output use case, but no explicit alternative is named.

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 output fields and the dropping of query/fragment. However, it does not mention error behavior, invalid URLs, non-HTTP schemes, or how the extra schema parameters affect behavior.

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

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

The description is very concise and free of unnecessary detail. It states the action and result in two short sentences.

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

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

The description lacks detail about the return format, error handling, and the role of the extra optional parameters. The schema mismatch makes the tool's contract unclear despite the simple 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?

The input schema contains four properties, but only 'url' is relevant to the described tool. The descriptions for 'json' and 'zone' are clearly mismatched from other tool contexts, and 'host' appears as an input despite being an output in the description.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment. It is specific and distinguishes the tool's core purpose, though the schema mismatch introduces some ambiguity.

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 over sibling tools or when not to use it. The description implies a simple URL-normalization use case but does not address alternatives or conditions.

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

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

With no annotations and no description of side effects, read-only status, or error behavior, the tool's runtime behavior is opaque. The mismatched parameter descriptions further obscure what the tool actually does.

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 and is not verbose. However, it is too sparse to convey essential information and provides no structured breakdown of behavior or usage.

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

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

The description lacks sufficient context for an agent to understand input/output expectations, relationship to the stated purpose, or why the four unrelated parameters exist. It is 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?

Although parameter descriptions are present, they are unrelated to HTTP status codes (e.g., URL normalization, hostname, JSON validation, timezone). These descriptions actively confuse rather than clarify how the parameters serve the stated catalog 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 it is a 'short catalog of common HTTP status codes', but it lacks a clear verb or action and does not explain how the provided parameters relate to the catalog. The purpose is ambiguous and not actionable.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or context in which this catalog should be preferred.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Current time' implying a read operation, but does not mention output format, error behavior for invalid zones, or whether network access is required. The schema includes unrelated parameters (url, host, json) that are not explained, adding confusion rather than transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the brevity leaves important details unaddressed.

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 tool, the description gives the core function but omits how to call it correctly, especially regarding the extraneous parameters in the schema. Without an output schema or annotations, the agent lacks information on expected return values and error handling, making the tool incomplete for reliable 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but the description adds no extra meaning. Worse, only 'zone' is clearly relevant; url, host, and json appear unrelated to timezone lookup, creating ambiguity about which parameters are actually used. The description does not clarify this.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns the current time for a named IANA timezone, distinguishing it from siblings like utc-time (UTC-specific) and iana-zones (zone list). The verb is implied ('get'), but the resource is explicit 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that utc-time should be used for UTC, or iana-zones for listing available zones. The agent must infer usage from the name and description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a noun phrase with no mention of side effects, safety, input/output behavior, or any operational 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 extremely brief, which might be seen as concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks any structural elaboration or explanation, making it insufficient for understanding the tool's functionality.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the parameters do, what the return value is, or any usage context, leaving an agent unable 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 input schema includes four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with descriptions, but they appear unrelated to UTC time. The tool description does not clarify how these parameters relate to the tool's purpose, leaving the agent confused about their role. The schema descriptions are self-contained but disconnected from the tool's stated functionality.

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 a noun phrase that conveys the core output but is not explicit about whether it returns or displays the time. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', making selection 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. The description provides no context for usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that the body is discarded, which is a side effect, but omits the return value, error behavior, and any other operational details. For a validation tool, this is a significant 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, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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

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

With no output schema or annotations, the description is expected to thoroughly explain the tool's behavior. It fails to mention the return type (e.g., boolean), behavior on invalid JSON, or the purpose of the other parameters. The tool appears to be a simple validator, yet the description leaves many operational details unclear.

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 descriptions cover all parameters at 100%, the description introduces ambiguity by using 'body' instead of the schema's 'json' parameter. Additionally, the schema includes three irrelevant parameters (url, host, zone) that the description does not clarify or justify. The description adds little value beyond the schema and may mislead an agent about which parameter is actually 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 action (check) and the subject (whether a body is valid JSON). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools and uses the ambiguous term 'body' instead of the schema's 'json' parameter. The core purpose is still evident, but the differentiation is lacking.

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 over alternatives like compatibility or domain-shape. The description gives no context about typical use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving an agent to guess when this is the appropriate choice.

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