HTTP Status

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful privacy note, 'Page content is not stored,' but omits whether the URL is fetched, whether redirects are followed, and what side effects or requirements exist.

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 text is short and front-loads the core operation in the first sentence. The second sentence is a meaningful caveat, though for a tool with four optional parameters and no title, the description feels slightly too terse.

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

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

For a four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It leaves unclear how the parameters combine, when each should be used, what the response format is, and what actually happens when the tool is called.

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 applies and the description does not need to repeat parameter-level details. However, the description introduces 'host' as a return value while 'host' is also an input parameter, and it gives no hint how 'json' and 'zone' relate to the URL operation.

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 names a concrete verb and resource: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It clearly communicates the core operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools that also handle URLs and status data.

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, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The agent is left to infer the intended use case from the short 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait—'No identifiers are retained'—which signals privacy-conscious handling, but it never states whether the tool is read-only, what output is produced, or what side effects or logging behavior might occur.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The privacy note earns its place as the only behavioral disclosure. Nothing here is redundant.

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?

Despite low structural complexity, the tool has no output schema and the description does not explain what 'classified' means, what the return value looks like, or how the optional parameters influence the result. An agent would not know what to expect after invoking it.

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 schema already documents all four parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning about how url, host, json, or zone relate to the classification, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states an action ('Show how this request is classified') but never says what 'classified' means, what categories or dimensions are involved, or what the tool is actually for. It is vague rather than tautological, and does not meaningfully distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'citation' 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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implicit context is that it accepts some kind of request data, but the description does not explain what problem it solves or when an agent should reach for it.

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 adds one meaningful boundary (no WHOIS/ownership data) but does not explain output format, validation behavior, case/Punycode handling, or what happens with invalid or empty inputs.

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. It is appropriately terse, though it omits behavioral details that would make it more useful.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters with some unrelated to the stated purpose, the description is too thin. An agent cannot reliably determine what the tool returns or how to handle parameters like json and zone.

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 without parameter details in the description. The description names 'hostname' as the focus but does not clarify how url, json, or zone relate to the operation, which is a notable 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 operation ('Split a hostname into labels') and an explicit boundary ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). However, the input schema includes url, json, and zone parameters that do not obviously map to hostname splitting, so the purpose is clear but not fully coherent with the schema.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like normalize-host or iana-zones. The description only says what the tool does not include, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it discloses almost nothing: no filtering, lookup, validation, mutation, side effects, or return behavior. The phrase 'for clock calls' is too vague to inform an agent 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 brief, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single vague phrase earns no credit when it omits the essential operation and context.

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 annotations, and no explanation of how up to four heterogeneous parameters are used. An agent cannot reason about valid inputs, expected outputs, or behavior from this definition.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents each parameter, but the description adds no meaning and creates confusion: the tool is about IANA timezone names, yet the schema also accepts url, host, and json. The description does not explain how these unrelated-looking 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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase, not a statement of what the tool does. It restates the tool name without specifying an action, resource, or result, and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like timezone or utc-time.

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

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

Only 'for clock calls' hints at a use context, but there is no explanation of when to use this tool versus siblings such as timezone, utc-time, or validate-json. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'group counts only', implying an aggregated result, but does not disclose network-fetch characteristics, error/redirect behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. The safe-read nature is only implicit.

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 tight sentence with no filler. The core purpose and output shape are front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 definition is too sparse for a tool with four unrelated-looking parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what 'group counts' means, what the return format is, or how the parameters map to the operation, leaving a well-meaning agent to guess.

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%, but the parameter descriptions are generic and seem mismatched to fetching robots.txt (e.g., 'normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate'). The tool description adds no clarification on how url, host, json, and zone relate to the task, so an agent cannot confidently select or fill parameters.

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

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

The description states a clear verb ('fetch') and resource ('public robots.txt') with a specific output ('group counts only'). It is understandable on its own, though it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools by name.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The description is purely functional with no usage context.

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 does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped. However, it remains silent on side effects, error behavior, and what happens with the other three schema parameters, which is a notable gap given the absence of annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the return values, the second states the filtering behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition.

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 for the schema as a whole. It only addresses URL normalization, while the schema includes three unrelated parameters (host, json, zone) whose role in this tool is unexplained. Without an output schema or annotations, an agent cannot fully understand how these parameters fit or what the complete call behavior is.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantics to the 'url' parameter by explaining what is returned and what is discarded. But it adds nothing about 'host', 'json', or 'zone', leaving those parameters disconnected from the described behavior.

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 specific behavior: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL and explicitly drops query and fragment. This gives an agent an unambiguous understanding of what the tool produces. No sibling tools are provided to differentiate from, so no further distinction is needed.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need a normalized URL with query and fragment removed. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, and no alternative tools are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit rather than directive.

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 implies a read-only informational return via the word 'catalog', but says nothing about output format, side effects, or how the parameters influence results. The only concrete behavioral detail, that json is 'discarded after the check', lives in the schema rather than the description.

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 seven-word sentence has zero waste and is front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than efficient completeness. It earns its place as the sole content yet conveys almost nothing actionable for a tool with four 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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It never connects the parameters to the purported catalog behavior, never describes the return value, and gives an agent no way to know what a correct invocation looks like.

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 at all and never explains how url, host, json, or zone relate to a status-code catalog. But since the schema already documents each parameter adequately, no additional penalty is warranted.

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 stating what the tool actually does (list, look up, return). It identifies a resource but vaguely, and the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) have no evident connection to a static status-code catalog, creating confusion rather than clarity. It does not differentiate from siblings such as 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like citation, compatibility, timezone, or validate-json. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or examples. An agent would have to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but does not disclose the output format, whether zone is required, or what happens if the unrelated url/host/json parameters are passed. The schema mismatch also goes unaddressed.

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. It is efficient, though somewhat too sparse given the confusing schema that accompanies it.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not state the return value, required inputs, or how to reconcile the schema's unrelated parameters. The simple purpose is clear, but the mismatch between description and schema demands more explanation than this one-liner provides.

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, but the description adds only marginal value by reinforcing zone's role. It provides no clarification for url, host, and json, which appear unrelated to a timezone lookup, leaving an agent unsure whether those parameters are accepted, ignored, or rejected.

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 behavior: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. This is clear and matches the tool name, but it does not differentiate timezone from siblings like inspect, status, or validate. The unrelated schema properties (url, host, json) add confusion, though the stated purpose itself is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage context is implied by the one-line purpose, which is not enough to route an agent confidently among 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only states the output is the current UTC timestamp. It does not disclose response format, precision, whether the four schema parameters are accepted or ignored, or any side effects.

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

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

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler. It loses points only because its brevity omits essential context about the parameter mismatches, but for what it contains, every word earns its place.

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?

A one-sentence description is incomplete for a tool with four unrelated optional parameters, a sibling set that includes time-oriented tools, and no output schema. The agent cannot determine the return format or the role of the parameters.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, the parameters url, host, json, and zone are clearly unrelated to 'utc-time' and the description does not clarify their relevance or whether they should be ignored. The generic schema descriptions do not add meaning in the context of 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 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the tool returns the current UTC time, identifying the resource and result. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like timezone, but the UTC qualifier provides enough distinction for basic selection.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling timezone, iana-zones, or validate-json tools. The description gives no context about calling conventions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully disclose that the body is discarded, which signals a non-persisting side effect. However, it fails to describe the validation outcome, such as whether it returns a boolean, throws an error, or emits a status code, leaving the agent uncertain about the result format.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action and the key side effect are front-loaded, and the description is appropriately sized for its narrow 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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral and return information. It omits how the body is supplied, what indicates a valid versus invalid result, and what to do with the three unrelated schema parameters. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, which normally justifies a baseline of 3, but the description adds little meaning beyond the schema. More importantly, the schema includes url, host, and zone parameters that are irrelevant to validating JSON, and the description never clarifies that 'body' corresponds to the 'json' parameter or why the other parameters exist.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools. However, it's slightly ambiguous because the input schema exposes a 'json' string parameter rather than a raw request body, and the description never explicitly connects the two.

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, nor are there prerequisites, examples, or exclusions. The sibling tools are unrelated, so confusion risk is low, but the description leaves all usage decisions to the agent without any contextual direction.

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