Language de

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

The description explicitly states that page content is not stored, which is a valuable behavioral disclosure about data retention. However, it does not mention other potential side effects, such as whether the tool fetches the URL, performs network requests, or has any caching behavior. Still, the note about non-storage goes beyond the minimal and adds meaningful transparency.

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

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

The description is exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences. It conveys the core function and a key behavioral note without any fluff or redundancy. The structure is clean and easily parseable, making it an exemplary model of 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 simplicity of the tool and the comprehensive schema descriptions, the description is largely complete. It covers the primary output and a notable behavioral aspect. However, it lacks any mention of integration with sibling tools or typical use cases, which would have made it fully self-contained. Still, for a tool of this scope, the description is sufficient.

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

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

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with 100% coverage. While the tool description does not explain any parameter directly, the schema itself already carries the semantic load. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high, even if the description adds no extra parameter meaning.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: returning host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. It is specific and uses a precise verb ('Return'), making the purpose unambiguous. The additional note about not storing page content further clarifies 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, status-catalog, or validate-json. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferable. This lack of usage direction leaves the agent to infer when citation is 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?

The description states 'No identifiers are retained,' which provides some transparency about data handling. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it may have, or any other behavioral aspects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden but only partially addresses it.

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

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

The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured for a tool description.

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

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

The description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters. It does not explain how the parameters are used or what the classification output represents. The mismatch between the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'normalize or cite') and the tool's purpose adds confusion, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke 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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning or clarification about how these parameters relate to the classification purpose, but the baseline score applies.

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

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

The description 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify what kind of classification or which resource is being classified. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like validate-json or normalize-url, making the purpose unclear.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools. The description provides no context about scenarios where classification is needed or how it differs from other available utilities.

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 states a single limitation (no WHOIS/ownership) but does not explain what the tool returns, error behavior, side effects, or why parameters like json and zone are present. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose and a key limitation efficiently, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description covers only the hostname-splitting aspect. It fails to explain the role of json and zone, what the output format is, or how the tool handles edge cases, making it incomplete for reliable agent invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it never explains how url, host, json, or zone relate to splitting a hostname. The description adds no extra value beyond the schema definitions.

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 (split), resource (hostname), and outcome (labels), and explicitly notes the absence of WHOIS/ownership data. It is specific but does not explicitly name sibling tools or differentiate them, so it falls short of 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or validate-json. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any side effects, read-only nature, or other behavioral traits. The tool's behavior is entirely 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?

The description is very short, but it lacks critical details. While succinctness is good, here it omits necessary information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently 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?

The description does not explain what the tool returns, how it should be invoked, or what the parameters mean in the context of timezone names. It is incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

The parameter descriptions (url, host, json, zone) are generic and do not relate to the stated purpose of IANA timezone names. It is unclear how these inputs are used or why they are needed.

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 hints at IANA timezone names but does not specify what the tool actually does with them (e.g., list, validate, convert). The vague phrase 'for clock calls' leaves the core function 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 given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. There is no context for selecting it.

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

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

The description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. While fetching a public robots.txt is presumably safe, this is not stated, and the mismatched parameter descriptions further obscure the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the core functionality without superfluous words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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

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

The description omits essential context such as what 'group counts' means, how to specify the target website, and any output format details. The parameter descriptions are useless for understanding how to invoke the tool correctly, making the overall definition incomplete.

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

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

The parameter descriptions are entirely inconsistent with the tool's purpose. 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' and 'json' as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check,' which have no relevance to fetching robots.txt. The descriptions actively mislead rather than clarify.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('public robots.txt'), and the specific outcome ('return group counts only'). However, the parameter descriptions contradict this purpose, creating confusion about what the tool actually does.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate scenarios, limitations, or relationships to sibling tools like 'validate-json' or 'normalize-url'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention any side effects, outputs, or error behavior. The tool's behavior is completely 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?

The description is extremely brief (one short sentence), but it conveys no useful information. While concise, it lacks any substantive content, making it inappropriate for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Given the tool has four parameters and no output schema or additional context, the one-line description is wholly inadequate. There is no indication of expected inputs, outputs, or use cases.

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

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

The schema lists parameters (url, host, json, zone) with generic descriptions, but these do not relate to a language tag tool. The tool description does not clarify how these parameters are used, leaving them 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 only states 'ISO 639 tag de.' which defines the language code but not the tool's function. No verb or action is specified, making the purpose entirely unclear.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool or how it differs from sibling tools like 'validate-json' or 'timezone'. The description provides no contextual usage information.

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 mentions that query and fragment are dropped, giving some behavioral detail, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any other behavioral implications.

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

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

The description is very concise and to the point, with no superfluous language, but it omits important contextual information about parameter usage.

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

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

Given the mismatch between the description (URL normalization) and the parameter list (including host, json, zone), the description lacks enough context for a user to understand how to call the tool correctly.

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

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

The description does not explain how the parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to the tool's function. The schema descriptions are generic labels without meaningful detail, so parameter semantics are poorly conveyed.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment, which is a specific and unambiguous 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, such as citation or validate-json, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description gives no indication of side effects, safety, or how the parameters affect behavior. The tool's behavior is entirely 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?

The description is very brief, but it fails to structure any useful information about the tool's functionality. Conciseness without clarity is 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?

The description lacks essential context about what the tool does, how it works, or any relationship to the parameters. It is incomplete and cannot be used effectively.

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

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

The parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') do not align with the stated purpose of cataloging HTTP status codes. The parameters appear copied from a different context and add no meaningful semantics 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?

The description states the tool is a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' but the parameters (URL, host, JSON, zone) are unrelated to HTTP status codes. This mismatch makes the purpose misleading and unclear.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or how it relates to the sibling tools. The description only states what it is, not when to invoke it.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only time lookup, which is reasonably transparent, but it does not mention any potential side effects, errors, or data handling for the extra parameters.

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 or redundant information. It gets straight to the point.

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 confusing extra parameters and the presence of sibling tools that could overlap, the description does not fully clarify how to use the tool correctly or how it fits into the broader context.

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 four parameters (url, host, json, zone), but the description only explains 'zone' (implied by 'named IANA timezone'). The other three are unexplained and appear unrelated to the described functionality.

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

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

The description clearly states the action and target: 'Current time in a named IANA timezone.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like utc-time and iana-zones, but does not explicitly mention the zone parameter or clarify the role of other params.

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 such as utc-time or iana-zones. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected.

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 does not explain any behavior, side effects, or output format. With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info, and it is severely lacking. The presence of irrelevant schema parameters further obscures 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 omits necessary information about how the tool operates. The lack of any structural elements (e.g., mentions of inputs, outputs, or usage scenarios) makes it underinformative.

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

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

Given the tool's apparent simplicity, a complete description should at least specify that it ignores any provided parameters or that only a subset is used. The mismatch between description and schema leaves the agent without enough context to use the tool correctly or know what to expect.

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

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

The schema lists four parameters with descriptions, but they are unrelated to fetching a UTC timestamp. The tool description does not mention any of these parameters, leaving their purpose unexplained and potentially misleading an agent into invoking the tool with irrelevant arguments.

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

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

The description states it returns the current UTC timestamp, but it lacks an explicit verb and is ambiguous about whether it takes any input. The schema lists unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone), which confuses the tool's actual 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 alternatives like 'timezone' or 'validate-json'. The description offers no context for selecting it appropriately.

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 mentions that the body is discarded after the check, offering some transparency about non-persistence. However, it does not disclose what happens on invalid JSON, whether an error is thrown or a boolean returned, or if there are any side effects beyond validation. No annotations exist to supplement this.

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

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

The description is succinct and to the point, using a single sentence to convey the core action. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. The structure is fine, though the ambiguity of 'body' slightly detracts from otherwise clean wording.

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 definition is incomplete because it fails to explain how the url, host, and zone parameters relate to validating JSON. Without clarity on these inputs, an agent cannot correctly formulate a call. The presence of irrelevant parameter descriptions undermines the overall completeness, leaving critical gaps in understanding.

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

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

Only the 'json' parameter has a relevant description ('JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'). The other three parameters—url, host, zone—have descriptions that are clearly mismatched (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'Public hostname', 'IANA timezone name') and unrelated to JSON validation, making them actively misleading for an agent.

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

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

The description clearly states the function: checking whether a body is valid JSON. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like citation or normalize-url, which serve different purposes. However, the term 'body' is ambiguous—it could refer to the 'json' parameter or an external HTTP body, so it's not perfectly crisp.

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

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain how to supply the JSON to validate. While there is no direct sibling for JSON validation, the lack of usage context or parameter instructions leaves the agent uncertain about invocation.

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