Language eo

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 notes 'Task text discarded' and that it 'Returns connection methods,' but it omits critical details such as whether the tool is read-only, incurs costs (despite 'pay-per-call' referring to the gateways, not this tool), performs network calls, or has any side effects. The disclosure is too sparse for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 front-loads the purpose and then adds a note about data handling. It avoids fluff and is efficient, though it could be more structured by separating the return value statement from the discard note. Still, it is well above average in 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain which parameters are relevant for which task types, what the 'connection methods' look like, or how the tool should be invoked for different use cases. An agent would likely need to inspect all parameter schemas and infer usage, leaving significant gaps.

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 individually. The description adds only a generic note about task text being discarded, which does not map to any specific parameter or add operational semantics beyond the schema. 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 ('Find'), a specific resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway'), and names example tasks (weather, search, scrape, voice). It clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings, which are all direct task-specific tools, by positioning it as a meta-router for discovering gateways.

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

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

The description implies usage by giving example tasks ('for a task such as weather, search, scrape, or voice'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over a direct sibling, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that no browser is launched, which gives a hint of side-effect-free behavior, but it does not mention return values, error conditions, whether it performs any mutations (despite 'discarded after' hints in parameter descriptions), or any other behavioral details. The cryptic parameter descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check' actually raise more questions than they answer.

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, consisting of a single sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It directly states the core action and a key caveat. There is no wasted wording, so it earns a perfect score on 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 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no context to help an agent understand how these parameters relate to the tool's purpose. There is no explanation of what 'shape check' means, what the tool returns, how parameters like 'zone' or 'json' factor in, or what constitutes a successful 'opening.' The description is far too sparse 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the individual parameter descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than something about checking openability, and 'city' mentions a 'public weather hint' that seems unrelated. These descriptions add confusion rather than clarity, so they do not meaningfully compensate for the lack of a coherent parameter model.

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.' It also includes a notable negative ('No browser is launched') that hints at the tool's non-interactive nature. However, the list of parameters includes many unrelated fields (e.g., city, feed, zone), which muddies the purpose and makes it less immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url.

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 instead of alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools such as playwright-url-ok or fetch-status. An agent has no way to know if this is the right tool for a given scenario beyond the tool's 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?

The description states 'Expression discarded' but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or lack thereof. With no annotations and a misleading description, the actual behavior is 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 is not appropriately sized because it omits essential information. The sentences are concise but do not contribute to a useful understanding.

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 schema and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool actually does, how it handles inputs, or what the output might be.

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 fails to explain the meaning or role of any of the 9 parameters. The schema descriptions themselves are present but are inconsistent with the stated arithmetic purpose, adding no clarity.

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

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

The description claims the tool evaluates arithmetic, but the schema parameters (URLs, paths, timezones, etc.) are entirely unrelated. This is misleading about 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 the many sibling tools, such as normalize-url or validate-json. The description offers no context 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?

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is a behavioral note. However, it does not mention network access, side effects, or any other behavior beyond this single fact, leaving partial 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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is well-structured, with no unnecessary verbosity, and efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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 having 9 parameters, the description only mentions a URL and does not explain how other parameters like 'ref', 'city', 'feed', 'json', 'path', 'zone', or 'query' fit into the tool's operation. There is no output schema, and the description's output details are minimal. The tool's behavior with these parameters is completely unclear, making the description insufficient for the tool's 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?

The schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not improve the score.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which is a specific and identifiable purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch-status' or 'normalize-url' which may have overlapping functionality.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred, nor any exclusion of other tools, leaving the agent without usage 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, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects and operational behavior. It only promises not to retain identifiers, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it performs network calls, whether it can error, or what it does with the provided data.

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 at two sentences, but the first sentence is semantically weak and the second is a privacy note rather than a functional explanation. It is short, but not well-structured for conveying the tool's behavior.

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

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

The tool is highly underspecified: no output schema, no annotations, 9 heterogeneous optional parameters, and no explanation of what 'classified' means or how the result is presented. An agent cannot determine what to pass, what to expect, or why this tool exists alongside its siblings.

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

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

The schema already documents each of the 9 parameters clearly (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL', 'IANA timezone name') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score 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 'Show how this request is classified' is too vague to convey the tool's actual purpose or output. The name 'compatibility' and the unrelated optional parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) do not clarify what compatibility is being assessed or what classification result is returned.

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 tools such as normalize-url, validate-json, or domain-shape. The description only states a privacy property ('No identifiers are retained') and never mentions conditions, alternatives, or prerequisites.

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 WHOIS/ownership data is not used. It does not mention network access, error behavior, output shape, side effects, or how irrelevant parameters are treated.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and result.

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 a simple stated purpose, the tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema, so an agent cannot tell which parameter to populate or what the result will look like. The description is too sparse to fully contextualize the call.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The overall description adds little beyond the schema; it implies 'host' is the relevant parameter but does not clarify the role of the other eight optional properties.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Split a hostname into labels') and explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data, making the tool's core purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this from domain-investigation tools.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over the many sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, fetch-status, github-repo-shape). The 'without WHOIS or ownership data' phrase hints at a boundary, but there is no explicit use-case, alternative, or condition.

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. The description discloses the HTTP method and limited return, but it does not explain that most schema parameters are discarded or how the tool behaves with multiple inputs. The mismatch between a HEAD operation and parameters like 'path' or 'json' could mislead about 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 main description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys a basic operation. It loses points only for omitting important context, but it is not verbose or poorly structured.

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

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

With nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what 'status only' means (e.g., HTTP status code vs. boolean), which parameter is primary, or how to select among the many optional inputs. The context is therefore incomplete for an agent to use the tool reliably.

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 all parameters, but they are semantically inconsistent with the stated purpose. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than as the target of a HEAD request, and parameters like 'city', 'zone', and 'json' suggest unrelated functionality, leaving their roles ambiguous.

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

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

The description states a specific operation ('HEAD a public URL and return status only'), but the input schema exposes nine unrelated optional parameters (Git ref, city, feed, JSON, timezone, etc.) whose descriptions suggest different operations, so the tool's actual purpose is not fully 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 given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The description only implies a narrow use case without naming alternatives or conditions.

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

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

The description mentions 'Path discarded' as a behavior, but this is minimal. It does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or what happens with the other parameters. The parameter descriptions, such as 'discarded after the shape check' and 'discarded after the call,' are misleading and undermine transparency about the tool's actual 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 (one sentence), but it lacks structure and does not enumerate or explain the parameters. The sentence is also misleading because the parameter descriptions contradict the stated purpose. Being short does not compensate for the lack of coherent 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 the tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or what constitutes a valid Figma URL. This leaves the agent without essential context to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

The schema descriptions for parameters like 'ref' (Git ref name), 'city' (City name), and 'feed' (RSS URL) have no relevance to parsing a Figma file URL. While the schema has 100% coverage, the descriptions are mismatched and provide no meaningful semantics for how the parameters relate to the tool's function.

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 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' which gives a general sense of the tool's purpose, but it is vague and does not specify what 'shape' means or what the expected output is. The parameter names and descriptions are entirely unrelated to Figma URLs, adding confusion rather than 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 like normalize-url or domain-shape. The description provides no context for selecting this tool over similar sibling tools, leaving 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?

The description explicitly mentions 'No disk access', which is a positive transparency statement about its non-destructive nature. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as side effects, return values, or error handling.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key constraint. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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

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

The description is incomplete given the tool's complexity. It does not explain what 'safe' means, what output to expect, or why the many other parameters exist. The lack of context leaves users unsure how to properly invoke 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?

The description only mentions 'a path' but does not clarify that the 'path' parameter is the relevant one. The input schema includes many irrelevant parameters with misleading descriptions (e.g., 'ref' as Git ref, 'json' as JSON text), and the description adds no clarity to resolve this confusion.

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 path looks safe without disk access. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes 'safe', leaving some ambiguity about the exact criteria.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does, without any contextual or comparative 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?

No annotations are provided that clarify side effects, read-only behavior, or error conditions. The schema descriptions mention 'discarded after the shape check' and similar phrases, but the description does not disclose that many parameters are ignored or that the tool may have multiple modes.

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 lacks structured information (e.g., input, output, usage). Given the complexity of the schema (nine parameters), this is under-specified rather than concisely complete.

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

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

The description fails to specify what the tool returns, which parameters are valid, or how to formulate a request. It is a minimal fragment that leaves almost all necessary context 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?

The description does not explain which of the nine parameters are actually used or how they relate to retrieving latitude and longitude. It adds no value beyond the already-ambiguous schema parameter descriptions.

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 ('Latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo.') rather than a clear verb statement like 'Returns latitude and longitude for a location.' It hints at the resource and method but does not explicitly state the action the tool performs.

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 any of the many siblings (e.g., weather-hint, timezone, normalize-url). No alternatives or distinguishing criteria are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations and no behavioral details, the description leaves side effects, return values, error behavior, and read-only guarantees completely unspecified. The phrase 'discarded after the shape check' in parameter descriptions hints at some internal behavior but is too vague to be informative.

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 wasted words and the main intent is front-loaded. However, it lacks any supporting structure or detail about parameters, output, or usage context.

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

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

The tool has nine parameters, none required, and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the role of irrelevant-looking inputs like 'city', 'zone', or 'query'. This leaves the context highly ambiguous and incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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

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

Although the schema has descriptions for all nine parameters, most are unrelated to GitHub repo parsing (e.g., 'city', 'feed', 'zone', 'json') and appear copied from other tools. There is no clear explanation of how 'url' is used or why the other parameters exist, so the schema actively undermines rather than clarifies 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 action ('Parse') and the target ('GitHub URL'), as well as the intended result ('owner and repo'). It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling URL-related tools, though it does not specify the output format or which parameter holds the URL.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, domain-shape, or figma-url-shape. The mention of 'GitHub URL' implies the use case, but there is no direct comparison or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It adds 'Titles discarded' but this is vague and does not explain side effects, permission needs, output format, or how the parameters are handled (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check' is only in schema, not description). The description fails to provide meaningful behavioral transparency beyond a single cryptic phrase.

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—and front-loads the primary action. It wastes no words, but the brevity borders on under-specification. Still, as far as conciseness goes, it is efficient and 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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is profoundly incomplete. It does not explain the role of any parameter, what the return value looks like, any prerequisites, or how 'Titles discarded' affects the operation. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool 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, but the description adds nothing about parameters. More importantly, the schema's parameter descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') and do not relate to the stated purpose of counting HN stories. The description does not reconcile the parameters with the tool's function, leaving the agent unable to understand why they exist or how to use them.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which mention HN counting. However, the phrase 'Titles discarded' is ambiguous and the presence of 9 unrelated parameters in the schema creates confusion about the actual scope, so it doesn't fully clarify the tool's true 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools are provided. The description is purely declarative and leaves the agent to infer usage context entirely.

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 discloses no behavior, side effects, or return values. The agent has no idea whether this tool is read-only, what it does with the inputs, or what the output format is. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a use case but doesn't explain the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It doesn't earn its place because it provides no actionable information, making it a placeholder rather than a useful guide.

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 annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. The agent cannot determine what the tool does, what inputs are expected, or what to expect in return. This is inadequate for even a simple validation or lookup 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?

The schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, so schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. However, the tool description adds no context about how these parameters relate to the tool's purpose, leaving the agent confused about why a url, host, or json parameter belongs in a timezone tool. The schema descriptions are individually clear but don't explain the tool's overall 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 without a verb, so it doesn't state what action the tool performs. It says 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls,' which could mean a list, a validator, or a lookup, but no clear operation is defined. The agent cannot distinguish this from a simple reference list or a timezone conversion tool.

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 siblings like timezone or utc-time. The description fails to mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without a basis for 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 states that it fetches a public robots.txt, implying network access, but it does not disclose failure behavior, timeouts, or what happens when the URL is invalid. It mentions 'group counts only' as the return, but the nature of 'groups' is undefined. The description adds minimal behavioral context.

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, which is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it is under-specified: it lacks critical details about parameter usage and return semantics. It is concise but not adequately 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not explain how to invoke it correctly (which parameter to pass), what 'group counts' means, or what the response looks like. The agent would likely be confused about the intended usage given the many discardable parameters. This is inadequate for the tool's 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 all parameters having descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify which parameter (e.g., url or host) is actually used for the robots.txt fetch. The schema descriptions themselves are vague for many params (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), so the description does not compensate for that ambiguity.

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 return group counts only. This is a specific verb and resource, and it differentiates from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape and url-ok by indicating a fetch-and-count behavior. However, it omits which input parameter drives the fetch, which is a minor clarity gap.

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. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or preferred parameters. The agent is left to infer from the parameter list, which is confusing because many parameters are marked as discarded. Without any usage context, the tool is hard to select correctly.

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 only says 'Key discarded' without explaining behavior, side effects, permissions, or return value. The tool's runtime 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, but brevity sacrifices critical information. It provides no operational detail and is too terse to be useful.

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

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

The tool lacks essential context: the input parameter for the Jira key is missing, and the purpose conflicts with the parameter names. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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

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

Each parameter has a description, but they are generic and inconsistent with the stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name' for ref, 'City name' for city). The descriptions fail to clarify how these parameters relate to checking a Jira key shape.

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 checks a 'Jira issue key shape', but none of the 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) correspond to a Jira key. The purpose is unclear and the tool's actual input is 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 or how it differs from sibling tools. The description gives no context for selecting it over similar tools like 'domain-shape' or 'validate-json'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention any behavioral aspects such as side effects, read/write operations, or network access. The phrase 'discarded after the shape check' in parameter descriptions hints at some validation behavior, but the tool-level description is silent on 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 brief (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices all informative content. There is no structure or front-loading of key information; it simply restates a trivial fact about the language code. A concise description should still convey the tool's purpose, which this fails to do.

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 and no required ones, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, what inputs are meaningful, how parameters interact, or what the output schema looks like (no output schema is given). The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the provided 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?

Although the schema covers all 9 parameters, the parameter descriptions are generic and appear unrelated to the tool's stated topic (language tag 'eo'). For example, 'ref' is described as 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' and 'city' as 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call.' These seem to belong to other tools, and the tool description does not explain how they relate to 'lang-eo'. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, and the schema's own descriptions are inconsistent with the tool name.

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

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

The description 'ISO 639 language tag eo.' is a noun phrase, not an action statement. It does not specify what the tool does (e.g., validates, returns information, or checks something). The agent cannot infer the tool's function from this description alone.

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 provides no context about use cases, and sibling tools like 'browser-url-ok' and 'fetch-status' have clearer purposes. The agent is left without any direction on selecting this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and edge cases, but it only mentions that the body is discarded. It does not disclose whether the tool makes network requests, follows redirects, ignores the many unrelated parameters, or has any rate limits or auth requirements.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It communicates the core action and a key output trait efficiently.

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 nine optional parameters and no output schema, the two-sentence description leaves too much unexplained. It does not clarify why the other parameters exist, which one is the docs URL, or what a 'hint' result looks like beyond HTTP status.

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 nine parameters have individual schema descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage and a baseline of 3. However, the tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and several schema descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') are cryptic without further 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 clearly states that the tool returns an HTTP status for a public library docs URL and that the body is discarded, which distinguishes it from body-fetching tools like web-fetch. However, it does not specify which input parameter is the actual URL, and 'public library docs' is somewhat 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool over similar siblings such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. It also does not mention any conditions or limitations for its use.

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

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

The description discloses that values are discarded, but it does not explain return behavior, side effects, or that the many string parameters appear to be ignored. With no annotations provided, this leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant wording. It is concise, though too sparse to compensate for the schema mismatch.

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 the output shape, the role of the nine optional parameters, and how to supply the JSON object. Given the high parameter count and no output schema, the tool is not adequately specified for an agent to call 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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions are mostly unrelated to counting JSON keys. The critical JSON input is missing, and descriptions like 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' do not clarify which parameter, if any, is the target object.

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 verb and object, but the object is ambiguous because the schema provides no JSON object parameter. It is unclear what the tool actually counts or how the listed parameters relate to it.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like validate-json or search-query-len. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when it should be avoided.

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

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

The description discloses the core transformation behavior: returning origin/host/path and dropping query/fragment. However, it does not mention edge cases, error behavior, or whether the operation is purely local, and no annotations are provided.

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, focused, and free of unnecessary detail. The two sentences provide the essential behavior without wordiness.

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 information about the return format, especially since there is no output schema. The presence of numerous irrelevant optional parameters and no required parameters makes the tool incomplete from an agent's perspective.

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

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

The input schema contains many unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, json, zone) with descriptions that do not fit a URL normalizer. The tool description does not clarify which parameter is intended, and no parameter is required, leaving invocation ambiguous.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns origin, host, and path from a URL and drops query and fragment. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling URL-related tools.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, such as normalizing URLs before comparison or validation.

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

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

The description discloses that no browser is launched, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explain what 'opened' means (e.g., HTTP status, URL validity), whether network requests are made, what the return value is, or why multiple unrelated parameters are accepted. The parameter descriptions hint at 'shape checks' and 'discarded' values, further confusing the actual 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 with no unnecessary words. The parameter descriptions are also brief and follow a consistent pattern, making the schema easy to scan.

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 and no mention of the return type or format, an agent cannot know what result to expect from the tool. The description also fails to explain the relationship between the tool's purpose and the large set of optional parameters, leaving the overall behavior under-specified.

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?

Each parameter has a description that adds some semantic meaning beyond the raw name and type, but the meanings are inconsistent with the stated purpose of checking URL openness. For example, 'City name for a public weather hint' and 'IANA timezone name' are irrelevant to a URL check, while 'url' is described as 'to normalize or cite' rather than 'to check if open.' The descriptions are present but not well-aligned with the tool's core function.

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 action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and includes a helpful clarification that no browser is launched. However, the presence of many seemingly unrelated parameters (city, zone, query, etc.) introduces ambiguity about the actual scope of the tool.

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 related siblings such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The description does not mention alternatives or indicate specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does state that the query is discarded, which is a useful transparency note, but it does not mention other behavioral aspects like return value, handling of empty input, or whether other parameters are ignored.

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 no filler or redundant wording. The primary action is front-loaded and the additional note about query disposal is placed second.

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 the simple stated purpose, the schema exposes 9 optional parameters with no clarification that only 'query' is relevant. The description also omits the output format and behavior when no query is provided, leaving an agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.

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

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

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Count characters') and the resource ('a search query'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which count query length.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, validate-json, or other shape-checking tools. It does not mention any exclusions or preferred conditions.

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

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

The description does not disclose that the many input parameters appear to be discarded or accepted for compatibility. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it is not transparent about the tool's actual 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 brief and front-loaded, meeting conciseness, but it lacks any structural detail such as examples or return behavior.

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

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

There is no output schema or return description, and the presence of nine irrelevant optional parameters is left unexplained. An agent cannot confidently predict what the tool does with inputs or what the catalog format will be.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are unrelated to the stated purpose of an HTTP status catalog (e.g., git ref, timezone, weather hint). The tool description adds no clarifying connection, and the 'discarded' notes in the schema do not compensate for the semantic mismatch.

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', which conveys the general purpose, but it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb-driven action and does not distinguish this tool from siblings 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

The description discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is a key behavioral trait, but it does not clarify why 9 parameters exist or how they are handled beyond the schema's own 'discarded' notes. Without annotations, this is minimal but not contradictory.

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 a single sentence plus a short note. It front-loads the core purpose, though it could benefit from a bit more detail about the template 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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain why the parameters exist if the prompt is discarded, nor what the returned template looks like. An agent would be uncertain about the tool's actual behavior beyond the basic statement.

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 descriptive comment. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies; it neither helps nor hurts.

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 action ('Return a three-step thinking template') with a specific resource, but 'three-step thinking template' is vague and not explained. It distinguishes from siblings only by being the only template-returning tool, but lacks detail on what the template contains.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context, use cases, or conditions, leaving the agent to infer when a 'thinking template' is needed.

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 behavior. It only states the operation, omitting error handling for invalid zone names, output format (e.g., ISO string, timezone offset), DST considerations, or that only the 'zone' parameter is used while others are ignored. The presence of 8 additional parameters with unrelated descriptions (URLs, JSON, paths) is unexplained, creating ambiguity.

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 waste, but it is under-specified for a tool with a 9-parameter schema. It lacks essential guidance that could be added without bloat, such as 'Uses the zone parameter; other parameters are ignored.' Thus, it is concise but not appropriately informative.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 0 required, no output schema) and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain that only 'zone' is used, does not describe return values, and does not clarify the role of the other parameters. An agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly without extra 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 schema description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already states. However, it fails to clarify that only 'zone' is relevant to the tool's purpose, leaving the other parameters as confusing noise.

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 time in a named IANA timezone' clearly states the verb (current time), resource (named IANA timezone), and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'utc-time' (UTC-only) and 'iana-zones' (list of zones) by specifying the 'named' qualifier, making it unmistakable.

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 such as 'utc-time' or 'iana-zones'. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer that 'zone' is the relevant parameter and that other siblings are for different purposes.

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 states the output and does not explain that the many input parameters are ignored or discarded. The schema contains irrelevant-looking fields that could mislead an agent about expected 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 short sentence with no extraneous content. It is maximally concise 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 tool is simple and the core purpose is clear, but the output format is unspecified (e.g., ISO 8601 vs. Unix epoch) and there is no output schema. This makes the returned value ambiguous in a broader agentic 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?

Although every parameter has a schema description, the top-level description adds no meaning about how they relate to the tool. Several parameter descriptions imply unrelated behaviors (e.g., URL normalization, file checks), creating confusion rather than clarifying the intended 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?

The description clearly indicates the tool returns the current UTC timestamp, which is a specific and unambiguous purpose. It lacks an explicit verb but the intent is obvious.

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 over siblings like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'. There is no mention that all parameters are optional and can be omitted.

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

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

The description discloses that the body is discarded, which is a behavioral note. However, it does not mention side effects, return values, error handling, or whether extra parameters are ignored. Without annotations to supplement, this transparency 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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it is overly terse relative to the complexity of the tool. It omits critical details about inputs and outputs, so while the structure is not bloated, it sacrifices necessary information 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?

Given the 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a valid JSON body, how the other parameters are handled, what the result format is, or any edge cases. The tool description should have provided far more context to be usable.

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 mentions a 'body' but the schema has nine parameters, with no indication that 'json' is the actual input. It fails to clarify the purpose of the other parameters, and the schema descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') are confusing. The tool description does not reconcile these inconsistencies or add meaningful parameter 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 clearly states the primary action (checking if a body is valid JSON) and mentions that the body is discarded. However, it uses the term 'body' rather than referencing the actual schema parameter 'json', and it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean or error), which slightly reduces clarity.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (such as other validation tools) or when not to use it. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or example scenarios, so the agent receives no situational 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that it fetches temperature via Open-Meteo; it does not mention that other parameters are discarded, whether it performs network requests, what happens with invalid city names, rate limits, or the return format. The schema descriptions for parameters like 'discarded after the shape check' are not reflected in the tool description, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It lacks critical context about the tool's actual scope, the meaning of the other parameters, and any usage boundaries. The information provided is front-loaded but insufficient for safe invocation.

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 annotations, the description must fully explain the tool's behavior. It only covers the weather use case and ignores the other parameters entirely. There is no mention of return values, error conditions, or how the tool handles non-weather inputs. This is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly use the tool for any input other than a city 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it only highlights 'city' implicitly. It fails to clarify the role of the other 8 parameters, which are described in the schema as checks or discards. This omission could confuse an agent, but since the schema itself documents each parameter, the description does not subtract value.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action (get current temperature) for a specific resource (a city) and names the data source (Open-Meteo). However, it does not account for the 9 input parameters in the schema, many of which (ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) appear unrelated to weather. This ambiguity between the stated purpose and the schema reduces clarity, but the core purpose is still communicated.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention that the tool may be intended for a broader set of 'hint' functions or that only the 'city' parameter is relevant for weather. An agent would not know if it should call this tool for non-weather inputs or when another sibling tool is 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 must carry behavioral disclosure; it states that the response body is discarded, which is useful. But it does not mention side effects, errors, request/response details, or any safety-relevant behavior such as auth/rate limits.

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 no filler; the key output limitation ('Body discarded') is stated early. More explanation would help, but the existing text is tightly structured.

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

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

Given nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain which parameters are used for the HTTP fetch, what the response format looks like, or how the unrelated-looking parameters relate to the tool's purpose.

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 nine parameters have schema descriptions, but many appear unrelated to the stated HTTP-status/content-type purpose (city, zone, query, json, path, ref). The descriptions like 'discarded after the call' add odd context rather than clarifying how each parameter affects the fetch, so parameter semantics are weak.

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

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

The description clearly names the operation (fetching HTTP status/content type) and the resource (public URL), and notes the body is discarded. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling fetch/URL-check tools, so it is slightly under-specified but still 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?

The description gives no direct guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like fetch-status or normalize-url, and no conditions or exclusions. The only implicit cue is that body content is discarded, which is not enough to orient an agent.

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

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

The description discloses that the title is discarded after the call, which is a useful privacy/retention behavior. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects or errors.

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, consisting of two short sentences with no unnecessary detail.

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

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

Despite the simple stated purpose, the context is incomplete: there is no output schema, no return type, no error behavior, and no mapping of the nine schema parameters to the concept of a Wikipedia title. An agent would not know how 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 has nine properties with descriptions, but none is clearly the Wikipedia title, and several are irrelevant (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone). The tool description does not clarify which parameter should carry the title, so parameter semantics are severely underspecified.

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: checking whether a Wikipedia title exists. This is specific and helps distinguish it from sibling tools.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser-url-ok or fetch-status. The description does not explain prerequisites, fallback tools, or when not to use it.

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