ISO 8601 duration shape

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 meaningful behavioral trait beyond the basic return value. It also implicitly indicates no content retrieval, but does not elaborate on potential side effects like network calls or error handling.

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, two sentences, and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently communicates the main functionality and a key constraint without unnecessary detail.

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

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

For a simple tool, the description covers the primary behavior and a privacy aspect. However, it omits any information about return format, error cases, or how the extra schema parameters relate to the task. The presence of mismatched schema fields reduces completeness, as the description does not resolve the confusion.

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 gives partial meaning for the 'url' parameter by stating it is a URL to return host, scheme, and status for. However, it does not clarify the remaining parameters (host, json, zone) that appear in the schema, leaving their relevance or usage ambiguous. The schema descriptions are generic and not reconciled with 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 clearly states the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which is a specific verb and resource. It also mentions a key non-goal (not storing page content), making the purpose unambiguous even without sibling comparison.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url or status-catalog. It does not mention any prerequisites or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The only behavioral note is 'No identifiers are retained', which addresses data retention but omits other relevant details such as side effects, authentication, or rate limits. The main action of classification is not elaborated.

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 well-structured, consisting of two short sentences. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and gets to the point, though the content is somewhat underspecified.

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 output schema and a vague purpose, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain what the classification result looks like, how the parameters are used, or what a typical use case would be. The tool appears to be an auxiliary checker, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for url, host, json, and zone. The tool description adds no additional meaning or relationships between the parameters and the classification logic, so it stays at the baseline score.

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 clearly identify the resource or action. It does not specify what kind of classification is performed or what 'compatibility' refers to, making it difficult to distinguish 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool or which alternatives to prefer. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json.

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 states the core behavior (splitting hostnames) and exclusions (no WHOIS), but the parameter descriptions are misleading (e.g., 'json' for JSON validation, 'zone' for timezone). This makes the actual expected inputs and outputs unclear, so an agent cannot predict how the tool will behave.

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 itself is concise, but the schema includes four irrelevant parameters with lengthy descriptions, adding unnecessary clutter. The overall structure is misleading because the parameter set does not align with the stated function.

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 described as splitting a hostname, but the schema lacks a meaningful hostname parameter. Instead, it includes unrelated parameters that suggest other tools. Key information about the expected input format and output is missing, making the definition incomplete and potentially harmful 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?

All four parameter descriptions are mismatched with the tool's purpose. 'url' mentions normalization/citation, 'host' is generic, 'json' refers to validation, and 'zone' refers to timezones. None of these clearly relate to splitting a hostname into labels, and there is no parameter for the actual hostname to be processed. The schema is effectively useless.

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 ('Split a hostname into labels') and even notes what it does not do (WHOIS/ownership). However, the parameter definitions are completely unrelated to this purpose, which undermines the clarity and could confuse an agent about what the tool actually 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' hints at a simpler alternative, but no specific sibling tools are referenced, and no conditions for selection are provided.

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

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects, such as whether the tool reads or writes data, or what side effects it might have.

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 actionable structure and fails to provide meaningful information. It is too brief to be 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 the tool's apparent complexity and the presence of four unrelated parameters, the description is severely incomplete. There is no output schema or explanation of how parameters interact with the timezone theme.

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

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

The parameter descriptions are generic and do not align with the stated purpose. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which suggests URL handling rather than timezone names, and 'json' is 'JSON text to validate', unrelated to timezones.

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' does not state any specific action or verb. It is vague and fails to clarify what the tool does, especially given the mismatched parameter 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or how it differs from related tools like 'timezone' or 'normalize-url'. The context of 'clock calls' is unclear.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the output format, but fails to mention error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if robots.txt is missing. The parameter descriptions in the schema are wildly inconsistent (e.g., zone described as timezone), which adds 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 very short and to the point. It contains no fluff. However, it is so brief that it omits necessary context, which slightly reduces the score.

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 appears simple, but the description leaves critical gaps: what constitutes a 'group', how url and host interact, and what the output format is. Given the param descriptions are misleading, the description does not make the tool usable without external knowledge.

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 parameters. Although schema descriptions exist, they are clearly mismatched to the tool's purpose (e.g., 'json to validate; discarded after the check' and 'IANA timezone name' are irrelevant to fetching robots.txt). The description adds no clarification, leaving parameter usage entirely ambiguous.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (fetch a public robots.txt) and the result (return group counts only). It is specific to robots.txt and distinguishes from generic URL or timezone tools among siblings.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any indication of intended scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'shape' which gives no indication of side effects, return values, or any behavior. For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, this is a critical 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 extremely short, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness. For a tool with multiple parameters, a single noun phrase 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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool does and what it returns. It fails to do so, leaving an agent with no idea how to call it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description provides no additional context linking parameters to the tool's purpose. The parameters (url, host, json, zone) seem unrelated to ISO 8601 durations, and the description does not clarify this relationship.

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 'ISO 8601 duration shape' is a noun phrase with no verb, so it does not state what action the tool performs. It does not distinguish from siblings like normalize-url or validate-json, and the parameters (url, host, json, zone) seem unrelated to durations, making the purpose even more confusing.

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

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

No mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like citation, normalize-url, validate-json have clear purposes, but this tool's usage context is entirely absent.

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

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

There are no annotations and the description does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, performs network requests, mutates state, or validates input. The phrase 'dropped' implies non-mutating behavior but is insufficient for full 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 itself is concise and to the point, but the schema introduces confusing and unrelated parameters that undermine the clarity of the tool definition as a whole.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description gives only a vague list of returned fields ('origin, host, and path') without specifying types, formats, or error behavior. The mismatched input parameters also leave the overall contract incomplete.

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

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

The parameter descriptions are almost entirely unhelpful and mismatched: 'host' is described only as 'Public hostname', 'json' as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name'—none of which relate to the stated URL normalization purpose. Schema coverage is misleading because the schema does not actually document the parameters needed for the described 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 states a clear action and result ('Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.'), but the input schema contains unrelated parameters (host, json, zone) that contradict the stated purpose and obscure the tool's actual function.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., citation, validate-json, utc-time). The description only mentions behavior, not selection criteria or 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'short catalog', implying a read-only informational tool, but does not disclose whether it performs any side effects, requires authentication, or how the parameters affect behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any structure or front-loading of critical information, and the brevity leaves out essential details about usage and parameters. It is not appropriately sized for a tool with four optional 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?

Given the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with the parameters, what output the agent should expect, or any preconditions. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information.

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 fully cover all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already states. It does not explain how these parameters relate to the catalog of HTTP status codes, so the description adds no additional semantic value.

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 purpose: a catalog of common HTTP status codes. However, it does not explain how the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to this catalog, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's actual function. It is distinct from siblings like normalize-url and validate-json, but the mismatch between the description and parameters creates 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to guess based on the 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention the output format (e.g., ISO 8601), how invalid timezone names are handled (error vs. fallback), or any side effects. The behavior is not fully transparent.

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 conveys the core function. There is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 appears simple, but the schema mismatch (three irrelevant parameters) and lack of detail on output or error behavior create significant gaps. The description does not sufficiently explain the schema or the expected usage, especially given the irrelevant fields are present in the schema.

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: url, host, json, and zone. Only 'zone' is relevant to the description; the other three are unrelated and likely artifacts from another tool. The description does not acknowledge or explain these extra parameters, leaving the semantics of the schema inconsistent with 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 clearly states that the tool returns the current time in a named IANA timezone, which is specific and action-oriented. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'utc-time' or 'iana-zones', though mentioning 'IANA' provides some differentiation.

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 instead of alternatives such as 'utc-time' or 'iana-zones'. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context or prerequisites (e.g., knowing a valid IANA timezone 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?

With no annotations and no description of side effects, return format, or error conditions, the tool's behavior is entirely opaque. The description does not disclose any limitations or important runtime 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 extremely brief and contains no filler, but it lacks essential structural elements such as return type or usage context. It is concise but not informative.

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 mismatch between the description and the input schema, the description is seriously incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the tool's purpose or what a caller should provide.

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 lists parameters (url, host, json, zone) with descriptions completely unrelated to 'Current UTC timestamp'. These parameters appear to be from a different tool and provide no meaningful context for how to invoke 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' vaguely states the tool's purpose but does not specify whether it returns a string, number, or formatted date. It also fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iso-duration'.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer utc-time over timezone or other time-related tools.

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

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

The description discloses that 'The body is discarded,' which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not explain what happens with the other parameters (url, host, timezone), what the return format is, or whether there are any side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills 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 remarkably concise, consisting of two short sentences with no superfluous words. It follows a clear subject-verb-object structure and is easy to parse. No unnecessary details or redundant phrasing.

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

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

Given the presence of four parameters, a simple tool description is not enough. The description fails to explain why url, host, and timezone are needed, what a 'body' refers to, or how the tool interacts with these inputs. This leaves major gaps in understanding the tool's full context and proper 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?

The schema descriptions are severely mismatched: url says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' (clearly unrelated to JSON validation), host says 'Public hostname', and timezone says 'IANA timezone name'. Only the json parameter aligns with the tool's purpose. The description adds no clarification about these parameters, leaving an agent unable to interpret the correct usage.

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

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

The description clearly states the core purpose: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This is a specific verb (check) and resource (JSON validity). However, the input schema includes parameters like url, host, and timezone that are not mentioned in the description, which may confuse an agent about how the tool actually operates.

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, edge cases, or compare with sibling tools like normalize-url or timezone. There is no explicit or implicit usage direction.

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