Language fi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'Task text discarded' and 'Returns connection methods', but does not specify side effects, costs (despite 'pay-per-call' hint), network access, or any other behavioral details. This is partially transparent but leaves important aspects unstated.

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—two sentences total—and communicates the core idea without unnecessary fluff. It is well-structured and easy to scan, though the brevity contributes to some ambiguity.

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

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

Given the tool's apparent complexity and the presence of 9 parameters, the description is not complete. It does not explain what the tool actually does with the parameters, what 'connection methods' means, or how the tool should be invoked. Critical context for proper use is missing.

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

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

The schema has 9 parameters with descriptions, but they are cryptic and inconsistent (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check' versus 'no disk access'). The description does not clarify how these parameters relate to the tool's purpose. The parameter descriptions appear to be placeholders or shape-check examples rather than meaningful inputs, adding little semantic value.

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

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

The description states a clear verb ('Find') and resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway'), with examples of tasks (weather, search, scrape, voice) and output ('Returns connection methods'). However, the term 'tool gateway' is somewhat vague and could be interpreted in multiple ways, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself 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?

The description implies usage for discovering tools for specific tasks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No comparison with sibling tools or conditions for choosing this tool 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining effects; 'Expression discarded' is the only behavioral hint and it is unclear whether this tool is read-only, returns a status, or silently does nothing.

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 text is short, but the second sentence ('Expression discarded.') is confusing rather than clarifying; the description is too sparse 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?

There is no output schema, no examples, no required parameters, and no explanation of how to supply the expression; the tool is largely unintelligible in 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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions, but they are unrelated to arithmetic (Git ref, URL, city, host, JSON, path, timezone, query) and none can plausibly carry the 'a+b' expression. The schema therefore provides no meaningful parameter semantics for the stated purpose.

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

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

The description says 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic' but the input schema contains no arithmetic expression parameter; 'Expression discarded' makes the actual purpose even more ambiguous. It does not clarify what output the caller receives.

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 any sibling validator or arithmetic tool; there is no mention of prerequisites or expected input format.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose some data handling ('No identifiers are retained' and per-parameter disposal notes like 'discarded after the length check'), but it does not state whether the tool performs external access, whether it is read-only, what side effects it may have, or what processing is actually done.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded with the main action. It contains no redundant filler, and the privacy note is relevant. It is concise, though it omits important behavioral detail that would make it more 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what result the agent should expect, how the classification is determined, which parameter(s) should be supplied, or what 'compatibility' means in this context. The privacy note provides some context, but not enough for correct use.

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 the parameter descriptions add meaning beyond the parameter names (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check', 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'IANA timezone name'). The main tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but with high schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description uses a verb and an object ('Show how this request is classified'), so it gestures at a purpose, but it never explains what 'classified' means, what categories/tools are involved, or what 'compatibility' refers to. It is too vague to clearly distinguish from the many sibling tools that also accept URLs, file paths, queries, or timezone names.

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

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

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of any sibling tool. There is no mention of conditions, alternatives, prerequisites, or examples, despite the large sibling tool set and the ambiguous 'classified' behavior.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the method (HEAD) and outcome (status), but the input schema includes many unrelated parameters (e.g., ref, city, zone) that are not explained in the description, leaving the actual behavior unclear and potentially 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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It follows a clear verb-resource-result structure and is appropriately front-loaded.

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 an output schema and the description only mentions 'status' without detailing the response format. More critically, the presence of nine unrelated parameters makes the tool's scope incomplete and confusing. It does not provide enough context for an agent to know which parameters are relevant or how they interact with the described behavior.

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 parameters with descriptions, the descriptions are misaligned with the tool's purpose. For example, 'ref' is described as a 'Git ref name' and 'city' as a 'City name for a public weather hint'—these have no apparent relation to HEADing a URL. The parameter descriptions do not add meaningful context and actively confuse rather than clarify.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('HEAD a public URL') and resource (URL) with an expected result ('return status'). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not distinguish from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or web-fetch, which also check URL reachability.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, or web-fetch. The description implies usage for checking URL status but does not explicitly state conditions 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 mentions that the path is discarded, giving a small behavioral hint. However, it does not disclose side effects, output format, or error behavior, and no annotations are present to supplement this.

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

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

The description is very concise, but it omits critical information such as how the other parameters relate to the task and what the output is. The brevity is acceptable, but it sacrifices necessary 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?

The description covers only the basic action and one behavior (path discarded). It lacks information about expected output, parameter relationships, and edge cases. The 9 parameters are not explained in the context of the tool, leaving the tool incomplete for an agent.

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

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

While each parameter in the schema has a description, the parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) appear unrelated to Figma URL parsing. The descriptions themselves are clear but misleading in the context of this tool's purpose, making the semantics confusing.

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 parses a Figma file URL and indicates that the path is discarded. This gives a specific verb and object, though the deeper purpose (e.g., validation, extraction) is not elaborated.

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 any alternative. The description lacks context for choosing this over other tools in the sibling list.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses 'No disk access,' which is a useful safety trait but applies only to the path parameter. No information is provided about side effects, reversibility, or behavior for the other eight parameters. The description is severely under-informative for a tool that clearly handles multiple input types.

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 plus a safety note), but for a tool with nine parameters and a multi-purpose schema, this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description is not front-loaded with the most important information; it focuses on one narrow aspect while ignoring the tool's actual scope.

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 (nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It explains only the path check and completely omits what the tool does with URLs, JSON, timezones, search queries, etc. An agent cannot determine the tool's full functionality or know that it can validate other kinds of inputs, making the description inadequate for correct selection and 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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so each parameter is documented with a short phrase (e.g., 'File path to check; no disk access'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema—it only restates the path check. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description does not compensate for the fact that most parameters are unrelated to the described purpose, so the semantic clarity across the full parameter set remains 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' However, the schema includes eight other parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) that suggest the tool can validate many different kinds of inputs, not just paths. The description fails to capture the tool's actual breadth, making its purpose only partially clear and potentially misleading.

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 its many siblings like browser-url-ok, validate-json, or timezone. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to guess whether to call this generic checker or a specialized sibling. This is a critical gap for a tool with such a wide 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?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool makes an external network call to Open-Meteo, whether it is read-only, or what side effects might occur. The parameter descriptions mention 'discarded after' and 'no disk access', but this is not integrated into the tool description.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that is easy to read and front-loads the core purpose. It loses some points for omitting essential usage details, but there is no verbosity or structural clutter.

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 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain which parameter to use, what the output format will be, or how to handle errors. The description is too minimal for an agent to reliably 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?

Although every parameter has a schema description, the tool description does not clarify which parameter is relevant for obtaining latitude and longitude. The schema descriptions themselves are terse and many seem unrelated to geolocation, so the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema and may confuse an agent.

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

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

The description states that the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, which gives a general purpose. However, the schema lists nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with no indication of which one identifies the 'place', making the actual purpose ambiguous and not clearly distinguished from sibling tools like weather-hint.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as weather-hint or timezone. It does not specify the input to provide, nor does it mention any conditions or examples.

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 'Titles discarded.' It does not disclose whether live fetching occurs, side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or failure modes. The unrelated schema parameters further obscure 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 only two short sentences. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second clarifies that titles are not returned. It is concise with minimal wasted words.

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

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

Given the confusing, unrelated schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks output format, parameter explanations, error behavior, and any clarification of how the caller should supply input. An agent cannot reliably 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?

All nine parameters have descriptions, but none relate to Hacker News or counting stories. Parameters like url, city, json, and path appear copied from other tool contexts and provide no meaningful semantics for this tool.

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

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

The first sentence clearly states the action (count) and resource (current Hacker News front-page stories). The phrase 'Titles discarded' adds slight ambiguity but does not 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 siblings like web-fetch or status-catalog. There is no mention of use cases, alternatives, or conditions that would favor 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return group counts only' hints at output shape but does not explain what 'group counts' means, whether the robots.txt is fetched live or validated, which parameter carries the target URL, or how the discarded parameters behave. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant disclosure 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 single sentence is short with no filler, which is structurally clean, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits the crucial mapping between the tool purpose and the parameters, so the brevity costs completeness. The one informative clause, 'return group counts only,' is front-loaded, but that does not compensate for the absent parameter guidance.

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

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

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no enums, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify which parameter receives the robots.txt URL, what the returned 'group counts' look like, or what happens with the other eight parameters. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of structured fallback, this definition is 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no parameter meaning and fails to bridge the stated purpose to any parameter. It never indicates that 'url' or 'host' is the robots.txt input, so despite the high schema coverage, the description actively leaves the agent guessing which of 9 params drives the fetch. The mismatch between the declared purpose and the unrelated 'discarded' params (city, json, zone) makes the parameter semantics actively 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 verb+resource+output ('Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only'), but this purpose is undermined by the input schema: 7 of 9 parameters (ref, city, json, path, zone, query, feed) are described as 'discarded' or unrelated to robots.txt fetching. Only 'url' and 'host' plausibly map to the stated purpose, and even those are labeled ambiguously ('URL to normalize or cite'). The stated purpose is clear in isolation but misleading against the schema, and it does not differentiate this tool from the 28 shape-check siblings.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 28 sibling tools, several of which are shape/URL checkers (domain-shape, figma-url-shape, browser-url-ok), the description offers no condition, exclusion, or alternative. An agent has no basis to choose inspect-robots over web-fetch or fetch-status.

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 carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only notes 'Body discarded,' which is a minimal behavioral fact, but it does not explain network access, side effects, safety, or how the tool handles the many parameters. This is insufficient 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 concise, with no wasted words, and the main purpose is front-loaded. However, it is severely under-specified and omits essential information, so while it is efficient, it fails to serve the agent effectively.

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?

This is a nine-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description provides almost no context about expected inputs, return values, or behavior. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke this 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?

Although the schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, the tool description adds no meaning about how parameters relate to the stated purpose. The description mentions only a library docs URL while the schema includes parameters for weather, JSON validation, timezone, etc., which is misleading and actively confuses parameter usage.

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

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

The description states 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL,' which names a specific verb and resource, but the input schema contains nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.) that are not mentioned. This creates confusion about what the tool actually does, and it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or how the tool relates to similar tools. The single sentence offers no usage context beyond a narrow example that contradicts the schema's breadth.

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 burden. It only says 'Values discarded' implying no persistence, but does not disclose whether the tool makes network calls, requires auth, or has other side effects. The behavior beyond counting is unexplained.

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 action. It is efficient and free of fluff, though arguably too brief to be fully helpful.

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 and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, how the JSON object is passed, or any edge cases. The tool appears generic and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% because each parameter has a description. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema; it merely repeats the action. Since schema already documents the parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific action: count keys in a JSON object. It clearly differs from siblings like validate-json (which validates) and search-query-len (which checks length). However, it does not specify which parameter holds the JSON object, though the 'json' parameter is implied.

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. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparable tools. The description offers no 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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it does not specify error behavior for invalid URLs, the return format, or that the tool is read-only. The HTTPS constraint appears only in the schema, not in the description, which is a notable 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?

Two concise sentences with zero fluff. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the dropped components are mentioned immediately. This is an appropriately sized description.

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

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

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain the return value, but it only lists the components without specifying structure (e.g., string, object, list). Additionally, the schema includes nine parameters, many irrelevant to the stated purpose, yet the description does not clarify that only 'url' is relevant. This makes the tool confusing 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it does not even mention the 'url' parameter explicitly. However, the schema already documents each parameter, so the description is not required to repeat them. The lack of clarification about which parameters are actually used is a minor omission given the schema covers 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 states a specific action ('Return origin, host, and path') on a specific resource (a URL) and clearly notes that query and fragment are dropped. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that validate or check URL shapes, such as browser-url-ok or figma-url-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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., HTTPS requirement) or situations where this tool should not be used. Sibling tools like web-fetch or inspect-robots are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No browser is launched,' which is a negative trait, but it doesn't disclose whether a network request is made, whether it validates URL syntax, what side effects occur, or what the return value looks like. The wide parameter list further obscures behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely short (two sentences), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads nothing useful and leaves out essential information. The brevity is not a virtue when it sacrifices necessary 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, what side effects occur, or which parameters to use for which scenario. An agent cannot reliably call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions themselves are disjointed (e.g., 'ref' is 'discarded after the shape check', 'city' is for a weather hint, 'json' is to validate) and do not relate to the tool's stated purpose of checking URL openness. The description adds no explanatory value beyond the schema, and the schema descriptions seem to describe a generic 'shape check' tool rather than a URL checker, creating 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened') but is extremely vague about what 'can be opened' means (HTTP status? URL syntax? DNS?). It also fails to align with the 9-parameter schema, which includes city, zone, query, etc., suggesting the tool does far more than URL checking. This vagueness makes it hard to distinguish from siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status.

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 28 siblings. No mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent has no way to know if this is the right tool for a URL availability check versus normalize-url, web-fetch, or browser-url-ok.

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 burden, but it only says 'short catalog' and gives no behavioral details—what the tool returns, whether it performs any checks, or how it uses the 9 parameters. The schema suggests validation-like behavior, but the description does not disclose this, making it 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 a single short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It reads like a label rather than a functional description and does not front-load critical information about the tool's behavior or input requirements.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with its inputs, what it returns, or how it relates to the sibling tools, making it nearly impossible for an agent to invoke 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% and each parameter has a description, but the tool description adds no meaning to these parameters. The parameters appear unrelated to a status-code catalog (e.g., city, host, zone), and the description does not explain how they are used, so an agent cannot infer the tool's actual operation from the schema alone.

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 resource and verb: 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.' This distinguishes it from fetch-status, which likely fetches a status code, but it does not explain how the tool's parameters relate to the catalog, leaving ambiguity about what the tool actually does with inputs.

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 or normalize-url. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or specific use cases, leaving an agent to guess 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. It does reveal that the 'prompt' is discarded, but it does not explain what happens to the nine input parameters or whether any side effects occur. It also does not describe the return value beyond calling it a 'template.' This is minimal transparency and leaves major behavioral questions unanswered.

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, only two sentences, and states the core action first. It is efficient with no filler words. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, though for a tool that simply returns a template it may be appropriately terse.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain why the parameters exist, what the template looks like, or when an agent should invoke this tool. An agent cannot confidently use it correctly based on the provided information.

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

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

The schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters and already indicate that many are 'discarded' or only checked for shape. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already carries the semantic load, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not improve parameter understanding.

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: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' However, the appended 'Prompt discarded' clause is confusing and suggests the input is irrelevant, which muddies what the tool actually does with its parameters. It does not name any sibling tool to differentiate from, so an agent may not know when this is the right choice.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where it should be avoided. An agent is left to guess whether this is a general-purpose template or something tied to a specific workflow.

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 mentions returning current time. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or error handling, though it implies a safe query.

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. Its structure is straightforward and easily parsed.

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 minimal and does not address the confusing schema with many unrelated parameters. It lacks context about which parameters are used, why others exist, or what the output format is, making it incomplete for practical use.

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 includes nine parameters, but most (e.g., ref, url, city) are irrelevant to the tool's purpose. The description only mentions the IANA timezone, leaving the other parameters unexplained and potentially misleading for agents.

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 current time for an IANA timezone. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like utc-time or iana-zones, so it is not fully distinguishing.

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, nor any usage context. The description is purely declarative without situational advice.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'The body is discarded,' which is a behavioral trait, but it doesn't describe return values, side effects (or lack thereof), error handling, or whether the tool is read-only. For a validation tool, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified and doesn't structure information about the tool's usage or parameters. It lacks front-loaded context, making it minimal but not well-structured for an agent.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how parameters relate to validation, which one represents the 'body,' or the tool's expected behavior. An agent would be left guessing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a description noting it is 'discarded after' its check. This adds meaning beyond the parameter name. The main description adds no parameter-level detail, but since the schema already handles semantics well, a 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 clearly states the core action: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools (e.g., 'domain-shape', 'file-path-ok') by the specific JSON focus. However, 'body' is ambiguous – it doesn't specify which parameter holds the JSON, though the overall purpose is evident.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual conditions. The sibling tools cover different validation domains, but the description doesn't explicitly route agents to the correct choice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo' and does not mention potential network dependency, error conditions, or the fact that the schema contains many irrelevant optional parameters.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that clearly states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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

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

The description is too minimal to be complete: it does not state that 'city' is effectively required, does not describe the output format, and does not explain how to handle the many unrelated schema fields. An agent would need additional information to call this tool confidently.

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 tool description only mentions 'city', but the input schema includes nine parameters with generic and confusing descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check' and 'discarded after the length check'. The description does not clarify which parameters are actually relevant for a weather lookup, so it adds little meaning 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 clearly indicates the tool returns the current temperature for a city and names the data source (Open-Meteo). It distinguishes from sibling tools like timezone or geo-hint, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'get'.

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 when to use the tool: whenever a current temperature for a city is needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like geo-hint or web-fetch.

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, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it makes network access, or what happens when a title does not exist. With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden and leaves these behavioral aspects unclear.

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

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

The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. It contains no filler words, though the second sentence about discarding the title is somewhat redundant with the tool name and could have been replaced by parameter-related guidance.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to supply the Wikipedia title, what the return value means, how errors are reported, or why the many schema parameters are relevant.

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 refers to a Wikipedia title, yet the schema exposes nine unrelated parameters such as ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query, with no title parameter at all. The individual parameter descriptions appear generic and inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose, making it impossible to map the description to the actual inputs.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool checks whether a Wikipedia title exists and notes that the title is discarded after the call. The verb 'check' and object 'Wikipedia title' are specific enough to convey the core purpose, though no context about alternatives is given.

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 sibling existence-check tools such as browser-url-ok, file-path-ok, or domain-shape. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases.

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