KSUID character length

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that task text is discarded and that it returns connection methods, but it does not clarify side effects, read-only status, cost implications, or the nature of the returned data. The 'pay-per-call' hint suggests potential cost but is not explicit. This is insufficient for an agent to understand 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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is stated first, making it front-loaded and easy to scan. However, the brevity comes at the cost of detail, but structure itself is efficient.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to explain how parameters map to the mentioned task types and what 'connection methods' means. It fails to do so, leaving agents uncertain about which parameter to supply for which task and what the return format will be. This is a significant gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 9 parameters are fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the parameter descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; the only relevant statement, 'Task text discarded,' is ambiguous and not tied to any parameter. Since the schema covers parameters, the baseline of 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 a clear purpose: to find a public pay-per-call tool gateway for tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice, and that it returns connection methods. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by being a gateway finder rather than an actual operation tool, though it does not name specific 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?

The description provides examples of task types (weather, search, scrape, voice) that imply when this tool is appropriate, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools like weather-hint or search-query-len. There are no exclusions or alternative names mentioned, so the usage context is only implied.

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 discloses only that no browser is launched, but says nothing about whether an HTTP request is made, whether the operation is safe/read-only, what 'ok' means, or what happens on failure. Given 9 heterogeneous parameters, the description leaves the actual behavior opaque.

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 filler. The key behavioral caveat ('No browser is launched') is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient density.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'ok' means, what the return value is, what side effects (if any) occur, or why such diverse parameters exist. The mismatch between the URL-checking name and the 9 unrelated-looking parameters is entirely unaddressed.

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 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning — it doesn't clarify why parameters like 'city', 'zone', 'query', 'feed', 'json', and 'path' are accepted by a URL-checking tool. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles documentation, but the description does nothing to explain the odd parameter mix.

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 and resource ('check whether a URL can be opened') and adds one useful negation ('No browser is launched'). However, 'can be opened' is vague — it doesn't say what check is performed (DNS, HTTP status, format, reachability). The name 'browser-url-ok' and the description overlap heavily, and the description fails to distinguish this from siblings like fetch-status, playwright-url-ok, and web-fetch, which all relate to URL reachability.

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 its many siblings (fetch-status, normalize-url, playwright-url-ok, web-fetch). The 'No browser is launched' hint suggests a contrast with playwright-url-ok but never names it or states selection conditions. An agent has no way to choose this tool over alternatives.

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

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

The phrase 'Expression discarded' provides minor transparency about a non-persistent side effect, but there is no mention of side effects like network calls, disk access, or whether the operation is read-only. Given no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. It earns high marks for brevity, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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

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

The description is severely incomplete given the complexity of 9 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the arithmetic operation, what inputs are expected, or what the return value represents, leaving the user entirely in the dark.

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 9 string parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are entirely unrelated to arithmetic evaluation. Their descriptions are generic and appear copied from other tools, providing no meaningful context for how to use them with 'calc-eval'.

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 verb 'evaluate' and the resource 'a+b style arithmetic', which is reasonably clear. However, it lacks specificity about the nature of arithmetic (e.g., does it support parentheses, floats, multiple operators?) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch-status' 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 any alternative. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or edge cases. It simply repeats the basic functionality.

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 discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful limitation. However, it fails to explain the many unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.) that appear in the schema, creating a mismatch between the URL-focused description and the tool's actual inputs. This lack of transparency about the tool's broader scope is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is two sentences with zero wasted words. The core function is front-loaded, and the secondary note about content storage is placed after. This is an exemplary concise structure.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain why the tool accepts city, feed, json, path, zone, and query, nor does it describe the return format beyond the three fields. An agent would struggle to determine the correct usage for anything other than a simple URL citation, and even that is ambiguous given the schema's breadth.

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 each parameter has a descriptive string, meeting the baseline. The tool description itself adds no context about how these parameters relate to the main purpose, leaving the relationship between 'citation' and parameters like 'city' or 'zone' unexplained. The parameter descriptions are clear individually, but the tool description does not enhance their semantics.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It also adds a distinctive note that page content is not stored. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status, which might also return status, though the combination of host, scheme, and status is specific.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any siblings, usage contexts, or exclusions. An agent would have no basis to choose this over web-fetch or fetch-status beyond the specific output fields.

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 discloses one privacy trait ('No identifiers are retained'), but does not mention what happens to inputs, whether any side effects occur, or what the output looks like. The term 'classified' implies some analysis but the nature of that analysis is undisclosed.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the main action, which is concise. However, it prioritizes a vague statement over useful detail, and the second sentence on privacy is a small addition. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what inputs do, how the analysis works, what the response contains, or when it should be invoked. An agent has no chance of using it correctly based on this text alone.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is individually documented. The description itself adds no meaning to the parameters—it does not explain how 'ref', 'url', 'city', etc. relate to 'classification'. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to tie the parameters 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 a vague purpose ('show how this request is classified') but never defines what 'classification' means or what kind of request it applies to. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling analyzers like 'domain-shape' or 'validate-json', which also inspect inputs, so an agent cannot tell what this tool does differently.

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 any of the 28 siblings. It does not state context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess whether this is for text analysis, URL checking, or something else.

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 mentions that WHOIS/ownership data is excluded, but does not explain how the tool handles the nine parameters, whether it makes network calls, or what side effects occur. For a tool with this many parameters, this is a significant transparency gap.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main action and avoids unnecessary words. It is efficient and to the point, though its brevity contributes to the lack of context. As a concise statement, it earns a 4.

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 nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of the unrelated parameters, how they relate to hostname splitting, or what the tool returns. The description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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% and each parameter has a detailed description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'), so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description itself adds no parameter information and does not even indicate which parameter corresponds to the 'hostname' mentioned. The narrow description clashes with the broad schema, confusing which parameters are relevant to the stated 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 a specific verb and resource ('Split a hostname into labels') and differentiates from sibling shape tools by specifying hostname. However, the input schema includes nine parameters, many of which (city, json, path, zone, query) are unrelated to hostnames, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual scope. The narrow description conflicts with the broad parameter list, reducing 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, exclusions, or context for choosing it over similar shape tools. A single sentence with no usage conditions leaves the agent without direction.

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 transparently states the HTTP method (HEAD) and that only the status is returned, but it omits any behavior related to the other 8 parameters—whether they trigger separate checks, are discarded, or require network access. The schema hints these are 'discarded' but the description adds no clarity on the overall 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 is grossly under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. The sentence does not earn its place because it omits critical information about the tool's full purpose and behavior; it is more a summary of one use case than a usable definition.

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 complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what happens with each parameter, what the response format is, whether the tool performs network requests for each, or how it relates to siblings. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool for anything beyond the URL case based on the description alone.

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% — every parameter has a description, though terse. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema already covers all parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for the schema's brevity or clarify parameter interactions.

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 and resource for one specific use case ('HEAD a public URL and return status only'), but the input schema reveals 9 distinct parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query, url) that imply a much broader multi-purpose validation tool. The description fails to reflect this scope and is misleading about what the tool actually does beyond the URL case.

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 like browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The description offers no context, no exclusions, and no mention of when other sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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 only mentions that 'Path discarded', which is a minor side effect, but it fails to disclose whether the tool makes network calls, what it returns (e.g., a boolean, a normalized URL), or how it handles malformed input. For a tool that likely just checks URL format, this is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler, making it efficient. However, it is so brief that it omits essential information, so while it is concise in size, it under-delivers on content. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good, but the lack of detail prevents a higher 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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It doesn't explain the expected return value, how to interpret the result, or how to handle the unrelated parameters. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without additional context, making it a poorly defined utility.

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

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

The schema lists 9 parameters, but only 'url' seems relevant to a Figma URL parser. The description doesn't clarify that the other 8 parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are ignored or what role they play. Although schema coverage is 100%, each parameter's description is generic and not tied to the tool's actual function. The description adds no value beyond the schema and fails to explain why so many unrelated parameters exist, leaving the agent confused about which to populate.

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: 'Parse a Figma file URL' – a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or jira-key-shape. However, 'parse' is vague; it doesn't specify whether it validates, extracts, or transforms the URL, so the purpose is clear in scope but not in behavior.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other shape validators. The name implies it's for Figma URLs, but the description doesn't state conditions like 'use when you need to check if a URL is a valid Figma file link' or contrast it with normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The agent is left to infer usage from 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?

The description discloses one key behavioral trait: 'No disk access.' Since no annotations are provided, this is the only behavioral info the agent gets. It does not mention return format, whether it is read-only (though implied by 'check'), or any side effects. It adds some value but leaves much unstated for a tool that likely returns a boolean or validation result.

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 (one sentence), which is good for front-loading the purpose. However, it omits critical context about the tool's broader applicability given the diverse schema. It is not verbose, but it also does not earn its place because it misses important information that would help an agent decide when to use 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?

The tool has nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only addresses the path parameter and provides no information about the other parameters, expected return values, or any conditions under which the check fails. For an agent to correctly invoke this tool with any of the other fields, the description is inadequate.

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 100% complete, covering all nine parameters individually. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely reiterates the 'no disk access' note for the path field. With full schema coverage, this meets the baseline but does not go further to explain interactions or edge cases.

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 and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' It is specific and matches the tool name, distinguishing it from URL or domain checkers. However, it only mentions paths, while the input schema includes eight other unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, etc.), which suggests the tool may have broader scope not captured here, reducing 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-checkers (domain-shape, browser-url-ok, etc.). The description does not state what makes this tool the right choice for a path-safety check, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The agent is left to infer that it is for path safety only, but the schema hints at other uses.

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 gives no information about side effects, read-only behavior, or error handling, and no annotations are present to clarify these aspects.

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 brief, but its brevity sacrifices clarity—it is a single phrase that omits essential details about input and output.

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 parameter mapping, and a vague description, the tool is insufficiently specified for an agent to invoke it correctly in most contexts.

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 contains nine parameters, none of which are explained in the description. The description's reference to 'a place' does not map clearly to any specific parameter, leaving callers unable to select the correct 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 the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place, but it does not clarify which of the nine input parameters represents the place, making the purpose ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor any indication of prerequisites or fallback behavior.

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 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL' and does not explain what happens with the other parameters, what the output format is, whether it validates or normalizes input, or any side effects. The schema includes 'discarded' notes for several parameters, but the description omits any behavioral detail about them.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nine optional parameters and a specific extraction task. It is concise but lacks critical detail, so it does not fully earn a higher 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?

Given the complexity of the tool (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of the majority of parameters (city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) or how they interact with the parsing logic. An agent cannot determine how to correctly invoke the tool for its stated purpose without additional 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 cover 100% of parameters, each with explicit descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds no additional semantics about how these parameters relate to parsing owner/repo. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description does not need to repeat that, but it also fails to clarify the purpose of the unrelated parameters in the context of the stated goal. 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.' This clearly distinguishes the tool's core intent. However, the input schema includes nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) that are not mentioned in the description, creating ambiguity about the tool's full scope. The core purpose is clear, but the mismatch prevents a 5.

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 its siblings like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or domain-shape. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases. An agent would have to infer usage from 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses that titles are discarded. It does not state whether this is a network fetch, any rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with the supplied parameters (which appear to be ignored). This is insufficient for an agent to predict 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 short (two sentences) but not effectively concise—it omits critical usage and parameter context. It reads as truncated rather than strategically trimmed, so it fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test because the 'Titles discarded' sentence adds little without parameter explanation.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of which parameters to supply or what the return format is. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool with confidence; the description is fundamentally incomplete for its complexity.

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 each parameter description is generic and unrelated to counting HN stories (e.g., 'ref' is 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no information about how these parameters influence the outcome, so the semantic gap is large despite the schema text.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb and object: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools like 'domain-shape' and 'url-shape.' The 'Titles discarded' clause adds a small scoping hint.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of how the 9 optional parameters relate to the counting operation. The agent is left to guess whether any parameters are needed or how this differs from other retrieval 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it gives none. It does not mention return values, side effects, or side effects like the 'discarded after the shape check' hints in the schema, and it contradicts the schema's parameter structure by implying a static list. This is misleading.

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 is so sparse that it lacks any meaningful structure or front-loaded key information. It earns a middle score for brevity, not for utility.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent has no way to know what the tool returns, how it behaves, or how to use 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter, but the description adds no contextual meaning. The description is about timezone names while the parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) are unrelated to that, creating confusion about how each parameter fits 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' suggests a list or reference but does not state what the tool actually does with its nine input parameters. It fails to distinguish itself from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', and the schema implies a validation or normalization function, not a mere list.

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 appropriate contexts, exclusions, or conditions that would select this tool over related siblings.

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 disclose behavioral traits on its own. It mentions that it returns only group counts, which implies it does not return full content, but it omits critical details such as network access requirements, potential failures, or how the many parameters are used. Most parameters are described in the schema as discarded, but the description does not mention this, leaving the agent unsure about side effects or 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 concise sentence, which is appropriately brief for the core action. However, it is under-specified: it omits essential context about which parameters matter and what the output looks like. Conciseness is fine, but the content is insufficient for effective use.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain which parameter is the robots.txt URL, what 'group counts' means, the output format, error handling, or how the other parameters are used or discarded. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the provided description.

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

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

While the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. More importantly, the parameters are unrelated to the stated purpose—e.g., 'city' for a weather hint, 'json' to validate, 'zone' for timezone—none of which relate to fetching a robots.txt. The description does not clarify which parameter identifies the target URL, making the tool's interface confusing and requiring the agent to infer a connection that is not stated.

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 names a specific resource and operation, but does not differentiate it from siblings like web-fetch or fetch-status, which could also retrieve a robots.txt. The name and description align well, but the sibling distinction is missing.

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 instead of alternatives like web-fetch or fetch-status. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and 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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the key is 'discarded,' which hints at no persistence/return of the key, but it does not state side effects, return value, errors, or whether any network/disk access occurs. Too little to be 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 very short and waste-free; both sentences serve a purpose. It could include an example or input mapping, but as a conciseness measure it is strong.

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 9 optional parameters, no required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to let an agent correctly invoke this tool. It leaves ambiguous what to pass and what the result means.

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 9 parameters have descriptions (100% coverage), which meets the baseline, but none of them maps to a 'Jira key' or explains how to supply the key to check. The unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) actually obscure the tool's purpose, so the schema descriptions add little useful meaning for this tool.

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

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

States a clear verb+object ('Check a Jira key shape') and distinguishes from sibling shape tools by naming Jira. However, it never defines what a Jira key shape is or which input parameter carries the key, so the purpose is only moderately clear.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative/comparison guidance. The only usage cue is the purpose statement itself, but there is no instruction about valid inputs or when to prefer this over other shape checkers.

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 side effects, permissions, or behaviors. The schema descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check' hint at some internal logic, but the main description gives no transparency about what the tool actually does.

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

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

The description is extremely short, which is concise, but it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence. It lacks a verb and any structured explanation, making it poorly formed despite its brevity.

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

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

Given the complexity of 9 optional parameters and the absence of an output schema, the description provides no context on how to invoke the tool or what results to expect. It is severely incomplete, leaving the agent with no actionable information beyond the tool's name.

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

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

The schema lists 9 optional string parameters with generic descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'City name') that are unrelated to KSUID. There is no indication of which parameter should be used as the KSUID input, making the parameters meaningless in this context.

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 'KSUID character length' is essentially a restatement of the tool name without a verb or clear action. It does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., 'checks' or 'returns' the length), making it a tautology rather than a clear purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar sibling tools like 'search-query-len' or 'memory-key-count'. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'HTTP status' and 'Body discarded,' but does not explain network behavior, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when non-URL parameters are supplied. The schema hints that most parameters are 'discarded after a check,' but the description does not clarify the actual validation logic or 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: two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and a key behavioral detail. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits any reference to the tool's broader parameter surface, making it efficient but insufficiently 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?

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and many sibling tools with overlapping functionality. Given this complexity, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of the non-URL parameters, does not describe expected return values (HTTP status code? full response?), and does not differentiate from similar URL-checking tools, leaving critical context missing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (all 9 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the URL concept, and does not explain how the other 8 parameters relate to the stated HTTP-status purpose. It neither improves nor detracts from the schema's own documentation.

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: 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL.' However, the input schema accepts 9 diverse parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.) that are unrelated to HTTP status checks, making the actual purpose ambiguous. The description does not mention these parameters or reconcile its narrow claim with the tool's apparent multi-purpose nature, so an agent cannot reliably infer what the tool does beyond the URL case.

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 its siblings (browser-url-ok, fetch-status, normalize-url, web-fetch, etc.). The description does not specify conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess whether this is the right tool for a given URL-checking task.

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?

Annotations are absent, so the description itself is the only source of behavioral information. The phrase 'Values discarded' is valuable and suggests no data retention, but the description does not explicitly disclose whether the tool performs network calls, writes anything, or returns only an integer. It adds some transparency without carrying the full burden.

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 only two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a meaningful qualifier. There is no filler or repeated schema content; any brevity issues are under-specification rather than verbosity, so conciseness itself is excellent.

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 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, two sentences are not enough for safe invocation. The description leaves unclear whether the mode should be a parameter value, the set of input properties themselves, or a separate object, and the return representation is not specified beyond a count. This material gap affects correctness.

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 parameter descriptions already document each field. The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning: it does not explicitly map 'JSON object' to the `json` parameter or clarify whether all supplied properties are counted. This is acceptable but not more than the baseline for fully covered params.

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 operation ('counts') and a resource ('a JSON object') and adds a qualifier ('Values discarded'), so a model can infer the kind of output. It is not a tautology and it is semantically distinct from a validate-only sibling, though it does not explicitly say which input parameter carries the JSON object.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as validate-json, fetch-status, or domain-shape. An agent must guess whether this tool is appropriate just from the word 'count,' which is weak for a 9-parameter tool with many sibling tools covering similar validation and shape-check concerns.

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 state that query and fragment are dropped, which is a specific behavioral trait. However, it fails to explain what happens to the many other accepted parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) – they are silently discarded after a shape check or similar, as hinted by schema descriptions, but the tool description gives no clue. This is a significant gap for a tool that appears polymorphic but is described as a simple URL normalizer.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and output. However, it is under-specified given the schema complexity, but that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue. For conciseness alone, it earns a 4.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the output format looks like (even though it says 'return origin, host, and path', it doesn't specify whether it's a JSON object, string, etc.), nor does it clarify the role of the other 8 parameters. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema: it only mentions 'URL' behavior, while the schema lists 9 parameters, many of which (city, feed, json, zone, etc.) seem irrelevant to the stated purpose. The description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they interact. This fails to compensate for the schema's generic descriptions and leaves an agent uncertain about what to pass.

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

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

The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' It clearly defines the tool's primary action and output. However, it does not mention the 8 additional parameters in the schema, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, which likely share similar URL-shape purposes. The core purpose is clear but the scope is not fully bounded.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing normalize-url over siblings like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape. An agent receives no direction on selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no browser is launched, which is useful, but it does not explain what the tool actually does with the various parameters, whether it makes network requests, or what output it produces. The mismatch between the stated URL-checking purpose and the unrelated parameters is a major transparency 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 concise, with just two sentences and the main point front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it omits essential context, so while it is efficient, it sacrifices necessary detail. For a tool with 9 parameters and no other docs, this brevity is a drawback, though the structure itself is clean.

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

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

The description is severely incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not explain what the tool returns, when to use it, how parameters are used, or how it differs from siblings. An agent has almost no information to call it correctly beyond the name and the vague 'URL can be opened' claim.

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% and each parameter has a brief description, but the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how parameters like 'city' or 'feed' relate to the URL check, leaving the agent to wonder if only 'url' is relevant. The schema descriptions themselves are terse and do not clarify the overall intent.

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 and resource: it checks whether a URL can be opened, and adds a key behavioral note that no browser is launched. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, which likely perform similar checks with or without a browser, leaving ambiguity about what 'can be opened' means (syntax validation vs. network reachability).

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and the parameter list includes many non-URL parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query) that are unexplained, so an agent cannot determine when this tool is the right choice.

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 disclose that the query is discarded, which is a privacy-relevant trait. However, it fails to warn that 8 of the 9 schema parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone) are irrelevant to this tool's function, inviting agents to pass them expecting meaningful results. The schema labels are subtle but the description does not make the single-relevant-parameter behavior explicit.

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 zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the 'Query discarded' note earns its place as a behavioral disclosure. Efficient, though arguably over-terse for a tool with a 9-parameter schema.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't identify which parameter is relevant, doesn't clarify the return value (presumably an integer count but never stated), and doesn't warn that the other parameters are decoys. An agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly from the description alone.

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 9 parameters, including 'query: Search text; discarded after the length check.' Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't even explicitly name 'query' as the parameter to use.

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?

States a specific verb (count) and resource (characters in a search query), and discloses the query is discarded. The purpose is clear on its face, but it does not differentiate from counting siblings like memory-key-count and hn-front-count, and the 9-parameter schema with unrelated fields (url, city, path) muddies what the tool actually acts on.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings there are similar counting tools (memory-key-count, hn-front-count) and shape-check tools (domain-shape, validate-json), but the description gives the agent no criteria for selection or exclusion.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses no behavior: no side effects, no return format, no security or permission requirements, no indication of what happens with the input values. The only hint is from parameter descriptions mentioning 'discarded after the shape check,' but the tool description itself is silent.

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 omits essential information and fails to front-load any actionable guidance. The brevity is not a virtue here.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral hints, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or why it exists. This is far below the minimum viable level for a tool of this complexity.

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% with detailed per-parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds nothing to clarify why these 9 unrelated parameters belong to a 'catalog of HTTP status codes.' The description does not bridge the gap between the schema and the stated purpose, so it adds no meaningful semantics.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase ('Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') rather than stating an action. It doesn't specify what the tool does with the given parameters, and the parameters (url, city, host, etc.) bear no obvious relation to HTTP status codes. It also doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. No context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical scenarios is 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Prompt discarded' and the schema notes each parameter is 'discarded', but it does not explain whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or what the returned template looks like. The disclosure is minimal and insufficient for an agent to predict behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely short (two sentences) for a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema. While it is concise, it is under-specified and not structured to aid comprehension. It does not front-load any meaningful information that would help an agent decide to use 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the output format, the 'steps' content, or how the parameters influence behavior (even though they are discarded). An agent cannot confidently call this tool based on this description alone.

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%—each of the 9 parameters has a description noting it is discarded. The tool description only repeats the 'discarded' idea without adding meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the baseline is 3, but the tool description adds no value here.

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 'Return a three-step thinking template' but this is vague and nearly tautological with the tool name 'think-steps'. It does not explain what the template is, when it is useful, or how it relates to the nine parameters. The additional 'Prompt discarded' hints at behavior but does not clarify the purpose.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of its 27 siblings. No mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The description provides no usage direction beyond the basic function.

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 transparency burden. It does not disclose error behavior for invalid IANA names, whether any network/lookup is involved, or 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 a single clear sentence with no filler 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?

Despite low complexity, the description omits usage context and does not mention that only zone is relevant, leaving the many irrelevant optional parameters confusing.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters and identify zone as the IANA timezone name, so the baseline applies. The tool description adds only the temporal meaning and does not clarify why eight other unrelated optional 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?

Description states the tool returns the current time for a named IANA timezone, which is a specific resource and action. It is distinguishable from sibling utc-time, though it does not explicitly contrast itself and lacks an explicit verb.

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 such as utc-time or iana-zones, nor any mention of prerequisites like a valid zone 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Current UTC timestamp' and does not mention that parameters are used for shape checks and then discarded, nor does it specify the output format or any side effects. The schema hints at validation behavior, but the description itself is silent, so an agent cannot anticipate how the tool handles inputs or what it returns.

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 at one sentence, which earns it points for brevity. However, it is under-specified and does not convey the tool's behavior or usage context. While there is no fluff, the sentence does not fully earn its place because it omits crucial operational details, making it more of a minimal placeholder than an effective description.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., ISO string, Unix timestamp), how parameters influence behavior, or any error handling. An agent would have to rely on the schema alone, which is insufficient for understanding the tool's full behavior. The description provides no additional context to bridge this gap.

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 each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, but the schema itself documents their transient nature. Given the high coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat schema details, yet it also does not clarify the relationship between parameters and the returned timestamp.

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' states the core function with a specific verb and resource, so the purpose is basically clear. However, it does not explain the role of the nine parameters or differentiate from sibling tools like timezone or iana-zones. The presence of parameters with 'discarded' semantics creates ambiguity about what the tool actually does beyond returning a timestamp, so the purpose is only partially clear.

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 the timezone tool for timezone conversions or iana-zones for zone listings. The description does not state any prerequisites, constraints, or exclusions, leaving an agent to guess the appropriate invocation 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?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'The body is discarded,' which hints at no side effects, but it doesn't disclose what happens with invalid JSON, the return format, or how the other parameters are treated. The mismatch between 'body' and the schema's 'json' parameter adds confusion.

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 appropriately short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose, which is good. However, it is too sparse to be useful—it omits crucial context about parameters and behavior. It is concise but not 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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the role of each parameter, the expected input format, the return value, or when to use it. An agent cannot reliably determine how to construct a valid 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?

The description adds no meaningful parameter information beyond the schema. The schema already describes each parameter with vague phrases like 'discarded after the shape check,' but the description doesn't explain how these relate to JSON validation or what 'shape check' means. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to compensate for the schema's ambiguity and even introduces a new term ('body') not present in the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This is clear, but it doesn't distinguish from sibling validators and introduces ambiguity by saying 'body' while the schema has a 'json' parameter. The presence of nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, path, zone, query) in the schema contradicts the narrow JSON-only purpose, reducing 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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. An agent has no way to know if this is the right tool for a given validation task beyond the 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, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'via Open-Meteo' which hints at a network call, but does not explain that most parameters are ignored, what the output looks like, or any side effects. The parameter descriptions in the schema say fields are 'discarded after the call,' but the main description omits this, leaving the agent to infer unexpected 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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices informativeness; it does not earn its place by providing enough detail to guide correct usage. It is under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the role of the non-city parameters, what the return value contains, or how the tool relates to its siblings. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. The schema clarifies that only 'city' is relevant, but the description does not emphasize this, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool returns the current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like geo-hint or timezone, and the presence of nine unrelated parameters in the schema creates ambiguity about the tool's actual 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where weather-hint is preferred over sibling tools. It simply states the core function 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.

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 does state that the body is discarded, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention that a network request is made, potential latency, rate limits, or error behavior. The disclosure is minimal but present, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the key behavioral note about the body being discarded. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 9 optional parameters, yet the description only addresses the URL. It does not clarify how the other parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) relate to the tool's purpose, even though they might be used for other checks. Given the complexity and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to understand the full scope of the 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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a description in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information. According to the rubric, a high coverage baseline of 3 applies even without description-level parameter details. The description neither enhances nor contradicts the schema's parameter documentation.

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 HTTP status and content type for a public URL, which is a specific verb and resource. It also notes that the body is discarded, adding a distinguishing behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this tool over those.

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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what it does without providing context on its typical use case or when not to use it. An agent receives no guidance on selecting this tool among the many similar siblings.

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 offers one behavioral note: 'Title discarded after the call,' which is cryptic and does not clarify side effects, return values, rate limits, or error behavior. The lack of detail leaves significant uncertainty for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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, with two sentences, so it is concise. However, it front-loads the purpose but then adds a vague behavioral note that does not help. There is no wasted wording, but the lack of substantive content means it is not well-structured for an agent to act on. It is appropriately sized 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?

With 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain which parameter represents the Wikipedia title, what the return value is, how to interpret the existence check, or any operational context. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the given description and 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?

While the schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, the tool's description claims to check a Wikipedia title but none of the 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) is described as a title. The description adds no value in mapping the purpose to any parameter and actually creates confusion by not identifying which input to use. The baseline of 3 for high schema coverage is not earned because the description fails to connect the tool's action to its inputs.

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 Wikipedia title exists.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and this is distinct from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or normalize-url, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous, but it does not connect to any specific parameter, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or why an agent would choose this over a sibling. It merely states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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