HTTP 503 unavailable

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It does disclose that 'Page content is not stored,' which is a useful side-effect note. However, it does not mention other behaviors like network requests, rate limits, or error handling, leaving several behavioral aspects 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 succinct, consisting of two short sentences. It conveys the core functionality and a key privacy note without any fluff, making it easy to read and process.

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 gives a basic idea of what the tool does but omits critical context. It lacks information about the other parameters, the output format (despite mentioning fields), and any constraints or prerequisites. Given the additional parameters and sibling tools, this level of detail is insufficient for an agent to reliably select and 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 description mismatches the input schema. It discusses 'URL' as the primary input and mentions output fields (host, scheme, HTTP status), but the schema includes additional parameters (host, json, zone) that are not explained. This creates confusion about the role of each parameter, especially since one parameter is named 'host' but the description implies host is an output.

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 primary function: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is specific and indicates the core action. However, it does not mention the other parameters (host, json, zone), which slightly reduces clarity about the tool's full 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, status-catalog). It only mentions a privacy aspect ('Page content is not stored'), but does not explain the intended use cases 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions that identifiers are not retained, but does not explain behavior such as side effects, output format, or how the request is 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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, but the purpose itself is too ambiguous to be considered effective. Still, there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 underspecified: it lacks details about what 'classified' means, how the four distinct parameters are used, and what output or result the caller should expect.

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

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

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but those descriptions are generic and do not clarify how url, host, json, or zone contribute to 'compatibility' or classification. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning.

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 phrase 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not identify a specific resource or action. It does not clearly differentiate from siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only gives a generic statement and does not mention use cases, prerequisites, 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?

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 tool description is a single concise sentence. However, the parameter descriptions are part of the schema, not the description, so the description itself is well-structured.

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

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

The description is incomplete because it does not specify which parameter is the hostname to split, nor does it describe the output format (e.g., an array of labels). This is a critical gap for an agent 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 descriptions are clearly mismatched: 'url' mentions normalizing/citing, 'json' mentions validation, and 'zone' mentions timezone, none of which relate to splitting a hostname. Only 'host' is vaguely relevant, but the description does not confirm it is the primary input.

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 (split a hostname) but does not specify which parameter is the hostname, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' adds a constraint but does not clarify usage.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url or validate-json. There is no mention of appropriate scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Meaning of HTTP 503' and does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it makes network calls, or any other behavioral characteristics.

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

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

The description is short, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It is a fragment that omits essential context, so its brevity does not serve the agent's decision-making.

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 four unexplained optional parameters, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what inputs to provide, what output to expect, or how this tool differs from its 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. However, the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) appear unrelated to explaining HTTP 503, and the description does nothing to clarify how they 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 states the tool's subject ('HTTP 503') and that it provides its meaning, so an agent can roughly infer the purpose. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement, and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling status-catalog or other status-related 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like status-catalog, citation, or normalize-url. The description gives no context about the intended use case, 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 and no mention of side effects, safety, or read-only behavior in the description, the tool's transparency is low. It is unclear if the operation is destructive or has external 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 very concise (one sentence) and structurally fine, but conciseness comes at the expense of essential information, making it less 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?

Given the tool has four parameters and no output schema, the description is wholly insufficient. It does not explain how url, host, json, and zone relate to each other or what the tool does with them, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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

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

The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, achieving 100% coverage, which sets a baseline of 3. However, the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') appear generic and not tailored to the tool's stated purpose of IANA timezone names, reducing 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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is vague and lacks a clear verb or action. It does not specify whether the tool lists, validates, converts, or retrieves timezone names, making its 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 compared to siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The description does not mention any conditions or scenarios where this tool is 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?

The phrasing 'return group counts only' implies a read-only operation that filters output, but it does not describe error handling, potential side effects, or what happens if the robots.txt is inaccessible. Since annotations provide no additional context, some behavioral details are missing.

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 core function. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 because the description does not reconcile the mismatched parameters with the stated purpose. An agent cannot determine how to correctly populate the required fields or what 'group counts' refers to in the context of robots.txt, making the tool difficult 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 parameter descriptions in the schema are generic and clearly mismatched with the tool's purpose (e.g., 'JSON text to validate', 'IANA timezone name'). They do not explain how url or host relate to fetching robots.txt, nor why json and zone are included. This is a significant 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 clearly states the action (fetch) and resource (robots.txt) and specifies the output (group counts only). However, 'group counts' is ambiguous and the parameters do not align with the stated purpose, which slightly reduces clarity.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name 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 the core behavior — returning origin, host, path and dropping query/fragment. Since no annotations are present, this description carries the full burden, and it does so clearly, though it does not explicitly address side effects or non-destructive 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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the function and output. There is no unnecessary verbosity or fluff.

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 fails to explain the presence of the mismatched parameters in the schema (host, json, zone), creating confusion about the tool's actual inputs. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently 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 description does not mention any parameters, and the schema's parameter descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose (e.g., host, json, zone are unrelated to URL normalization). This leaves the agent without meaningful guidance on how to construct a correct invocation.

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: to return origin, host, and path for a URL while dropping query and fragment. This is a specific, unambiguous verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling 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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any 'use this when' or 'instead of' statements, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the function described.

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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, read-only nature, or what happens with the provided parameters. The description is too minimal to offer any transparency about the tool's 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 short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks any structure or detail. It does not provide headings, lists, or any organized information that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose or usage. The brevity works against 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, annotations, and meaningful parameter descriptions, the tool is far from complete. An agent has no information about expected inputs, outputs, or behavior. The description fails to place the tool in any useful context, especially compared to 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 (url, host, json, zone) are completely unexplained. The description does not reference them or indicate how they relate to the catalog of HTTP status codes. Without any additional context, these parameters are meaningless to an agent trying to 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 states 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which gives a vague idea of the tool's purpose, but it does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., returns a list, looks up a code). The presence of unrelated parameters like url, host, json, and zone further muddies the intended functionality.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where the tool would be appropriate. The sibling tools cover diverse functionality, but no comparison or selection criteria are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does indicate a read-only current-time lookup, but it does not disclose output format, invalid-zone behavior, or whether the unrelated url/host/json parameters are ignored or meaningful.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the core purpose.

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 4-parameter, 0-required tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not indicate which parameter drives the lookup, how invalid zone names are handled, or why unrelated optional inputs are present.

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 meaning beyond the schema's existing 'IANA timezone name' note, and it doesn't explain why url, host, and json appear in the schema of a timezone 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 is specific: 'Current time' + 'named IANA timezone' clearly identifies the operation and resource. It also distinguishes this tool from the siblings utc-time (no zone) and iana-zones (a list of zone names).

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 implies when to use the tool — when a zone-specific current time is needed — but it never states an explicit alternative, exclusion, or comparison with utc-time or iana-zones. The agent must infer the boundary from the sibling names.

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 but only states 'Current UTC timestamp.' It does not reveal the output format (epoch vs. ISO 8601), whether the four unrelated-looking parameters are used or ignored, or any other runtime behavior. The parameter mismatch with the tool's purpose is left completely unexplained.

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 three-word description is maximally economical with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified relative to the confusing four-parameter schema; a single clarifying sentence about the parameters or the output format would make the structure genuinely complete.

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 its input schema presents four parameters that appear irrelevant to its stated purpose. The description explains neither the output format, the role of the parameters, nor how this tool differs from the sibling 'timezone' tool, so an agent lacks essential context for a correct call.

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%, which normally sets a baseline of 3, but the parameters (url, host, json, zone) appear copied from sibling tools and are incongruent with fetching a UTC timestamp. The description adds zero clarification about whether these parameters are meaningful, accepted-but-ignored, or an error, leaving an agent unable to decide whether to pass them.

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' names a specific resource and implies a get/return action, so an agent can tell what the tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 'timezone' tool, but the UTC-specific phrasing offers reasonable clarity.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling 'timezone' tool or any alternative. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or the conditions that would select this tool over another.

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 explicitly states 'The body is discarded,' which clarifies that the tool does not persist or modify data. This is a useful behavioral note. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean success/failure), which could be important for the agent to know.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences. It conveys the core functionality without any unnecessary words or fluff. This is ideal 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?

The description leaves significant gaps in context. It does not explain why url, host, and timezone parameters are present, nor does it clarify their relationship to the validation task. An agent might be confused about whether these parameters are required or how they affect the operation. The minimal description is insufficient for fully understanding the tool's interface.

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

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

The description does not explain any of the parameters. While the schema provides descriptions for each parameter, those descriptions are largely inconsistent with the tool's purpose (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' for url, 'IANA timezone name' for timezone). The only relevant parameter is 'json,' but the description's mention of 'body' does not explicitly map to it. The description adds no clarity to the parameter list.

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: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' The verb 'check' and resource 'body' are specific, and the tool name 'validate-json' aligns perfectly. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implicitly suggests using it for JSON validation, there is no mention of scenarios, edge cases, or comparison with other tools. The usage is implied but not clearly stated.

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