Language fa

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no browser is launched, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not state whether the check involves a network request, what the success/failure criteria are, or any side effects. The single disclosure is minimal but non-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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, both useful. It front-loads the main purpose and adds a key behavioral note. It does not waste words, but it is arguably under-specified given 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what 'can be opened' means, what the return value is, which parameters are required for a typical call, or how to interpret the many 'discarded' parameters. An agent would be unable to reliably invoke this tool correctly based solely on this description.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described individually. However, the tool description does not clarify how these parameters relate to the URL check. Many parameters (ref, city, zone, query) are described as 'discarded' or unrelated, but the description does not explain which parameter is the primary one or how to use them together. The description adds no value beyond the schema and even creates confusion about the tool's actual input.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' It adds the constraint 'No browser is launched,' which gives some specificity. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like playwright-url-ok or normalize-url, and the schema includes many unrelated parameters (city, json, path, zone, query) that obscure the core 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that playwright-url-ok might be preferred for full browser-based checks, or that normalize-url is for normalization. An agent has no context to choose among siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The only behavioral hint is 'Expression discarded', which is cryptic and does not explain side effects, return values, or permissions. The description contradicts the schema by implying arithmetic while the schema parameters are unrelated to arithmetic, making it misleading.

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

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

The description is a single vague sentence. This is under-specification, not conciseness, and it fails to front-load any useful information for an agent trying to decide whether to invoke the tool.

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, no output schema, and no annotations. A complete description would explain what the tool does with these parameters, what it returns, and any constraints. This description provides none of that, making it completely inadequate for correct 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the tool description adds no meaning to any of the 9 parameters. It does not mention them at all, and its claim of 'a+b style arithmetic' does not map to any parameter, actively confusing rather than clarifying.

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 'Evaluate' and a resource 'a+b style arithmetic', but this is extremely vague and does not align with the input schema, which lists parameters like ref, url, city, etc. It fails to distinguish the tool from any of the 27 siblings, and the actual function is unclear given the schema.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios that favor this tool over any of the many sibling tools listed.

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 the behavioral burden. It discloses that 'Page content is not stored,' which is useful, but it does not mention that the tool likely performs network requests, what happens on failure, or that it has multiple check modes (e.g., city, JSON, path). The parameter descriptions mention 'discarded' and 'no disk access,' but those are in the schema, not the description, and are not sufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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. It front-loads the primary function and adds one behavioral note, which is efficient.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only covers one function. It lacks details on return values, error handling, prerequisites, and the purpose of the other parameters. For a tool with this complexity, the description is far from complete and would not enable an agent to call it correctly for non-URL 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description's stated purpose ('host, scheme, and HTTP status') does not align with the 9-parameter schema that includes city, feed, JSON, path, zone, and query. The description misrepresents the tool's actual scope, and while the schema documents each parameter, the description adds no context about why these unrelated parameters exist. This mismatch could mislead an agent into using the tool for the wrong purpose.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), which is clear and distinct from siblings like web-fetch or normalize-url. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from fetch-status or normalize-url, and the description's narrow purpose clashes with the broad schema, slightly reducing clarity.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference siblings like fetch-status, web-fetch, or normalize-url. An agent would have to infer usage from the schema, which is not sufficient given the wide parameter set.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects, limitations, or error behavior. It only states the HTTP method and return type, without mentioning redirects, timeouts, ignore behavior for unrelated parameters, or any side effects.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the format of the returned status, error handling, or how the many optional parameters interact with the HEAD request. Given the absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand expected results and edge 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 input schema contains nine parameters with descriptions that appear unrelated to a HEAD request (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name', 'JSON text to validate'). The url parameter description ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') is inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose, making the parameters confusing and potentially misleading.

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 ('HEAD a public URL') and expected result ('return status'), which clearly identifies the tool's core purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like web-fetch or browser-url-ok, but the HTTP method and focus on status make the purpose reasonably 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, such as web-fetch for content or browser-url-ok for availability checks. There is no mention of appropriate conditions, limitations, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the path is discarded, which is a minor detail. It does not mention whether the tool makes network calls, returns validation results, has side effects, or requires authentication. For a tool with 9 parameters and no safety hints, this is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes a behavioral note. While it is efficient, it is borderline under-specified; however, for the dimension of conciseness and structure, it earns a high score because every word contributes. The 'Path discarded' clause is directly relevant to 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it validates a Figma URL, what constitutes a valid shape, or any error handling. An agent cannot reliably determine the expected output or side effects from this description alone. This is a serious deficiency for a tool with such a broad parameter set.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the 9 parameters having a clear description in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents each field. According to the baseline, when coverage is high, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat schema details but also does not add extra context about how parameters relate to the Figma URL parsing.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL'. It is clear about what it targets, and the additional note 'Path discarded' gives a hint of its behavior. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling shape-check tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape, and 'parse' is slightly vague regarding the actual validation or extraction logic.

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. Sibling tools like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or domain-shape exist, but the description does not mention any selection criteria, exclusions, or context where this tool is preferred. An agent would have to infer the use case from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It says 'No disk access' but does not explain whether the tool performs network calls, reads environment variables, has side effects, or what it returns on success/failure.

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

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

The description itself is very short and front-loaded with the key verb and subject. However, the surrounding schema is large and repetitive, and the description could have been slightly more informative while staying 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry full context. It fails to explain what 'safe' means, what return value is expected, how to handle invalid inputs, or why 9 optional parameters are relevant. An agent cannot reliably invoke or interpret this 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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the descriptions are generic and often irrelevant to a file-path check (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint'). The tool description adds no clarification about which parameter is the path or how the others are used.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe', but the parameter list includes many unrelated optional fields (url, city, json, etc.), which muddies which 'path' is being referenced and what the tool actually operates on.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many similarly named siblings (e.g., normalize-url, browser-url-ok, domain-shape). The description only states 'No disk access', which is a constraint, not a usage 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions the data source (Open-Meteo) but does not state whether the call is read-only, requires network access, has rate limits, or how input is handled beyond vague 'discarded' notes in parameter descriptions. No side effects or prerequisites are disclosed.

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, but it is under-specified. It lacks any structural information such as which parameter to use or what the output format is. The brevity is efficient but does not earn a higher score because it omits critical 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 9 parameters, none required, and no output schema. The description is too sparse to be complete; it does not explain the expected input format, return structure, error behavior, or how the tool relates to its many parameters. An agent would struggle to call it correctly without inspecting parameter descriptions and guessing intent.

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 each parameter already described, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning to parameters; it does not clarify which parameter (e.g., city) is the primary input for geocoding, despite the schema listing many unrelated parameters like ref and json.

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

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

The description states the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, which is a clear verb+resource. It does not differentiate from siblings like weather-hint or timezone, so it loses one point for lack of differentiation.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'parse' with no mention of edge cases, invalid URLs, output format, or side effects, though parsing is implicitly read-only.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema, but the description does not specify which parameters to use, whether any are required, or what result is returned. The purpose is clear, but the invocation context is 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 input schema contains nine parameters, many seemingly unrelated to parsing a GitHub URL. The URL parameter description says 'normalize or cite' rather than parsing owner/repo, and other parameters like city/feed/json/zone do not align with the tool's stated purpose.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.' This distinguishes it from sibling URL/shape tools like figma-url-shape or domain-shape.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, what inputs are expected, 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.

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 only mentions 'Titles discarded,' which hints at input handling but is cryptic. The unrelated parameter descriptions further obscure 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, but it omits necessary context. It is structurally simple, though not 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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain what the parameters mean, what the tool returns, or when to use 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?

All nine parameter descriptions are unrelated to the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name,' 'City name for a public weather hint'), actively misleading an agent about what inputs are relevant.

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) and the object (current Hacker News front-page stories), making the tool's purpose identifiable. However, it's terse and doesn't specify any input or output, so it's not fully explicit.

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 web-fetch or browser-url-ok. The description lacks any conditional or comparative context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, return format, or network access. It discloses none of these. The tool could be a simple lookup, a validation, or even a network fetch; the description gives no indication, making it impossible for an agent to predict consequences of invocation.

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 technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. There is no wasted text, but the lack of substantive content makes it fail the requirement that every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 accepts 9 parameters, only one of which ('zone') is obviously related to timezones. The description gives no explanation for the other parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, query), nor does it clarify the tool's overall behavior or return value. For a tool with such a broad schema and no output schema, the description is severely 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter already has a basic explanation. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters are used or which are relevant. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage, though the description's mention of 'common' timezone names is not tied to the 'zone' parameter specifically.

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 ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') with no verb indicating an action. It does not state whether the tool lists names, validates a given zone, or returns information about zones. This leaves the purpose ambiguous and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'.

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

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

The only contextual hint is 'for clock calls,' which implies some relationship to time-related tasks, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools are provided.

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

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

The description notes that values are discarded, hinting at read-only behavior, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, output format, or any constraints. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency and falls short.

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 free of unnecessary words, using clear, direct sentences. It could benefit from a brief example, but overall it is well-structured and 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?

With nine optional, seemingly unrelated parameters and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without enough context to confidently invoke the tool. It fails to explain which parameter is the actual input, what the return value looks like, or how to handle the irrelevant fields.

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 inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose. For example, `json` is described as 'JSON text to validate' and `query` as 'discarded after the length check', neither matching key counting. There is no parameter that clearly represents the JSON object whose keys are to be counted.

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—counting keys in a JSON object and discarding values—which distinguishes it from validation or search tools. However, the input schema does not include an obvious JSON object parameter, and the `json` param is described as validation, creating ambiguity about what the tool actually operates on.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate-json or search-query-len. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, limitations, or selection criteria.

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 query and fragment are dropped, which is useful. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does not mention how the many unrelated parameters (city, zone, ref, etc.) are handled, nor any error behavior or constraints like HTTPS-only.

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 redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core behavior and the key constraint about query/fragment.

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 or annotations, yet the description only addresses URL handling. It does not explain the purpose of the other parameters or why they exist, leaving an agent uncertain about what to pass or expect. This is a significant gap for a tool with such a broad schema.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are individually described. However, the tool description itself adds nothing about parameter usage, and the schema descriptions indicate most parameters are 'discarded' — a confusing design that the tool description does not clarify. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does document each parameter.

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/fragment. It is specific and actionable, but does not differentiate from siblings like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, which may also operate on URLs.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of when it is appropriate or when other URL-related tools should be chosen.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no browser is launched, but it does not mention whether an HTTP request is made, whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or what the return value looks like. The behavior is largely unspecified.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. It omits essential information about return values, parameter usage, and relationship to siblings, so the brevity is a deficiency, not a virtue.

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, no annotations, and a vague description, the tool is critically incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how to interpret 'opened,' or why the diverse parameters are included. The description fails to provide enough context for correct 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% with per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description claims it checks whether a URL can be opened, while the schema includes many non-URL parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query) that are all described as 'discarded after' a shape check. The tool description provides no mapping between these parameters and the stated purpose, creating confusion about which parameter is the actual URL and why the others exist.

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

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

The description states a clear action (check whether a URL can be opened) and explicitly differentiates from browser-url-ok via 'No browser is launched.' However, 'opened' is ambiguous (HTTP status? reachability? redirects?), and it does not name any sibling tool, relying on the negative phrase 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch-status, normalize-url, or browser-url-ok. The only hint is the negative statement 'No browser is launched,' which implies a use case but never states it directly or lists alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Query discarded' but does not disclose that the tool has eight other optional parameters with their own discard behaviors, nor does it explain what happens if multiple parameters are supplied. The behavioral contract is vague and potentially misleading given the schema's breadth.

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 with the primary purpose, achieving high conciseness. However, it is so terse that it omits necessary contextual information about the parameter set, which reduces its overall effectiveness despite the structural efficiency.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify the output format, which parameters are relevant, or how the tool should be invoked correctly. The minimal text leaves too much to inference, making it inadequate for an agent to use 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?

The schema descriptions cover all 100% of parameters, each with clear intent, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal value, only reinforcing that the query parameter is used for length checking but not clarifying how the other parameters relate to the tool's purpose. It neither compensates for nor contradicts the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Count characters in a search query') and identifies the query resource, but it does not clarify how the tool relates to the nine parameters in the schema. It fails to indicate whether only the 'query' parameter is used or if the others are also handled, which creates ambiguity about the tool's actual scope.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json). The description does not provide context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without any decision support for 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 behavior. It states 'Prompt discarded,' which hints that input is ignored, but it doesn't specify whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or what the template is used for. The behavior beyond discarding input is entirely undisclosed, leaving agents to guess.

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

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

The description is extremely short (two sentences), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to explain the template's content, purpose, or how parameters relate. Effective conciseness means every sentence earns its place; here, the second sentence adds confusion rather than clarity.

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, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the three-step template is, how to use it, or what the parameters are for. An agent cannot reasonably infer correct usage from this description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a claim that the 'Prompt discarded' applies, implying parameters may be ignored, but this is ambiguous—it could mean only the prompt text is discarded while parameters still influence the template. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Return') and a resource ('three-step thinking template'), but the resource is vague and undefined. It doesn't clarify what the template contains or how it relates to the 9 unrelated parameters. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds confusion, suggesting the tool ignores input, which undermines purpose clarity. No distinction from siblings is provided.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools cover diverse domains (URL checks, timezones, JSON validation, etc.), but the description gives no context for when the thinking template should be invoked. No exclusions or alternative references are present.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'current time' but does not disclose behavior regarding the many other parameters, whether a zone is required, or what happens when it is omitted. The lack of detail about the tool's handling of unrelated parameters is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it lacks detail that could have been included without verbosity.

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

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

Given 9 parameters (none required), no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely inadequate. An agent cannot determine which parameters to use, what the tool returns, or why the other parameters exist. It fails to provide essential context for correct 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%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters; it does not clarify that only 'zone' is relevant while others are ignored. Per baseline rules, high schema coverage justifies a 3.

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 exact function: current time for a named IANA timezone. It is specific and unambiguous, clearly distinguishing from siblings like utc-time and iana-zones.

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. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the body is discarded, which is a useful trait, but it omits any mention of return format, side effects, error behavior, or whether other parameters affect the check. The description adds little beyond what the schema already states for each parameter.

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

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

The description is extremely short (two sentences) and not front-loaded with key information. While it is concise, it is under-specified, lacking essential details such as the parameter name for the JSON body and the tool's output. This is not efficient conciseness but rather a gap.

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 grossly incomplete. It does not explain the role of the other parameters, the return value, error handling, or how the validation is performed. The description leaves an agent unable to correctly invoke the tool without inspecting the schema and guessing.

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 description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning—it does not clarify which parameter is the 'body' or how the parameters interrelate. The schema alone is sufficient for parameter-level understanding, but the description does not enhance it.

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 resource ('Check whether a body is valid JSON'), but 'body' is ambiguous—it never names the specific parameter (json) that holds the JSON text. It also gives no indication of what the tool returns (boolean? error?) or how it relates to the other 8 parameters in the schema, 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference any sibling tool such as file-path-ok or domain-shape. The context is entirely absent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the output is 'current temperature' but doesn't mention side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or the fact that most parameters are 'discarded' as indicated in the schema. The schema's 'discarded' notes are not part of the description, so the agent is left uninformed 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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it omits essential information about the tool's multi-purpose nature and the range of parameters. Conciseness is not an issue, but the description under-specifies to the point of being unhelpful for the broader tool.

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, none required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It only covers the weather use case, leaving the purpose of the other parameters and the tool's overall behavior unexplained. An agent cannot correctly select or invoke this tool for anything beyond a simple weather query.

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

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

The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It implicitly references 'city' but does not explain the other 8 parameters, which are all documented in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description is misleading by implying weather is the sole function. It fails to clarify how the other parameters are used, so it does not help the agent understand the full parameter set.

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 purpose: current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. However, the input schema includes 8 other parameters (ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) that are unrelated to weather, suggesting the tool is actually multi-purpose. The description only covers the city/weather use case and omits the broader scope, making the tool's purpose ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like geo-hint or lib-docs-hint. The description doesn't mention exclusions, preconditions, or scenarios where a different tool would be appropriate. An agent cannot determine when to invoke this tool beyond the narrow weather hint case.

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, giving some insight into processing behavior. However, it does not disclose access requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The presence of unrelated parameters (city, feed, zone) without explanation undermines 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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the core behavior without unnecessary verbiage. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, though it lacks details about the parameters.

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

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

The description lacks essential context: it does not explain the role of the nine parameters, the output format, error conditions, or prerequisites. Given the large parameter set and no output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to use 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 parameter descriptions are inconsistent with the stated purpose. For instance, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than to fetch, and parameters like 'city' and 'zone' suggest unrelated functionality. This makes it impossible to understand how to correctly use the parameters.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: fetching a public URL and returning HTTP status and content type, with the body discarded. This is specific, not a tautology, and provides useful detail that distinguishes it from simple URL normalization or checking tools.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. The description only states what it does, not the conditions under which 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only discloses that the title is discarded, but omits what the return value is, whether the operation is read-only, network calls, or error handling. The claim that a title is involved is also inconsistent with the schema, which lacks a title parameter.

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

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

The description is only two sentences, which is concise, but it is too sparse to be useful. It front-loads the purpose but fails to provide any structural guidance, such as expected input or output, making it minimal but not well-structured for agent use.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no required ones, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke the tool, what it returns, or which parameter to use, making it nearly impossible 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds nothing about how parameters relate to the tool's purpose. It does not explain which of the 9 parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) is used to derive a Wikipedia title, leaving the agent with no semantic connection between the description and the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('a Wikipedia title'), making the tool's core function clear. However, it does not clarify how the title is provided, given the parameter list contains no 'title' parameter, so it's not fully self-contained.

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 indication of when to use this tool over siblings like 'browser-url-ok' or 'domain-shape'. It does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess.

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