Language fr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does note that 'Page content is not stored,' which is a useful privacy guarantee. However, it omits that the tool also validates JSON or handles timezones, and it does not clarify whether the tool makes network requests or returns status codes only. The description covers only a fraction of the 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, efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the main action. However, it is too brief to cover the tool's multi-purpose nature, so it is more under-specification than proper conciseness.

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

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

The tool has four parameters and no output schema, and the description does not explain how the parameters interact or when to use each. It also does not mention return values beyond host, scheme, and status. Given the added complexity of json and zone, the description is clearly incomplete 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description, however, does not add meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, and it completely ignores the 'json' and 'zone' parameters, leaving their role unexplained. An agent reading the description would not know why those parameters exist or how they relate to the stated function.

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

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

The description states a specific function: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is a clear verb+resource. However, the input schema includes parameters like 'json' and 'zone' that are not mentioned at all, making the actual scope ambiguous. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog, though the core function is somewhat distinct.

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 its siblings. It does not mention alternatives like normalize-url or validate-json, nor does it specify conditions for using the json or zone parameters. An agent would have to infer the intended use from the schema 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 and no detailed description, the tool's behavior is opaque. The only behavioral hint is 'No identifiers are retained,' which does not explain side effects, return values, or error conditions.

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

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

The description is short but not effectively structured. The first sentence is too vague to be useful, and the second sentence about identifier retention is an isolated privacy note rather than a clear functional explanation.

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

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

The description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters interact, or what classification outcome the user should expect.

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

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

All four parameters have schema descriptions, so coverage is 100%. However, the tool description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and the purpose of each parameter in the context of 'compatibility' remains unclear.

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

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

The description 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify what 'compatibility' means, what action is performed, or what resource is affected. It provides no differentiation from sibling tools like 'validate-json' or 'normalize-url'.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where 'compatibility' would be the appropriate 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?

With no annotations and no description of side effects, permissions, return format, or error behavior, the agent has no idea what the tool actually does beyond splitting a hostname. No information is provided about whether it performs network calls, modifies data, or returns structured results.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical information about parameters and usage. It lacks any structure to organize the mismatched parameters or explain which ones are relevant. While brevity is positive, the lack of clarity outweighs the conciseness.

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

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

Given the mismatched parameters and lack of output schema or return type, the tool is highly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool expects or returns, especially since the parameter descriptions conflict with the stated purpose. This is a significant gap in contextual 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?

All four parameters have descriptions, but they are clearly mismatched with the tool's purpose. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'json' as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'. These have nothing to do with splitting a hostname into labels and are misleading. The descriptions add no value and actively harm 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 clear action (split a hostname into labels) and resource (hostname), but the phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' adds ambiguity about what exactly is excluded. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, whose purposes are more distinct.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The mention of 'without WHOIS or ownership data' hints at a distinction but is not explicit. There is no indication of appropriate input types or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no information about side effects, permissions, or whether the tool reads or writes. The tool's behavior is completely undisclosed.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is far too brief for a tool with four parameters and a complex purpose. It lacks the substance needed to be appropriately sized.

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 purpose, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the function, the relationship between parameters, or any return behavior, leaving the agent without essential context.

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

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

The parameter descriptions are shallow and unrelated to the stated purpose. The tool is about timezone names, yet the schema includes url, host, and json, which have no apparent connection, making the parameters confusing and not semantically meaningful.

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, not an action, and does not state what the tool actually does. It mentions 'Common IANA timezone names' but gives no verb or clear function, leaving 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like timezone or utc-time. The description fails to provide any context 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 does not disclose any side effects, network behavior, permissions, rate limits, or failure modes. No annotations exist to supplement this.

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

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

The description is very brief but lacks necessary detail, being more of a stub than a meaningful explanation.

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

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

Without an output schema or further explanation, the description leaves the tool's functionality and expected results entirely unclear.

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

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

The schema descriptions are generic and mismatched (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), and the description adds no clarification for how url, host, json, or zone relate to fetching robots.txt.

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 (fetch robots.txt) and resource, but the meaning of 'group counts' is vague, and the parameters do not align with the stated purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or validate-json, nor any context for when it is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, data usage, or what happens to inputs. It provides none of this; the description is a bare statement with no behavioral disclosure.

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 (only one phrase), but it lacks any structural elements like a verb or context that would convey meaning. It is brief but not effectively structured to inform the 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 complexity of the tool (four unrelated parameters), the description is utterly incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, the parameters' roles, or expected behavior, making it impossible to use correctly.

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

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

The description adds no meaning to the parameters. While the schema provides individual parameter descriptions, they are generic and unrelated to the tool's stated purpose, creating a mismatch (e.g., 'json' suggests validation but the tool name implies language). The description does not connect parameters to any tool-specific function.

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

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

The description 'ISO 639 language tag fr.' is essentially a tautology with the tool name and does not state what the tool actually does. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'validate-json' or 'normalize-url', and the generic parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') suggest a different function than a language tag.

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, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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

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

The description discloses the core behavior—what is returned and what is dropped. Since there are no annotations, this provides essential transparency. However, it does not mention edge cases (e.g., invalid URLs, empty input) or whether the tool has side effects (unlikely for a normalization function).

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 effectively communicates the primary function without unnecessary 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?

The description is sufficient for the primary operation, but it does not explain the role of the extra parameters (host, json, zone) or how they affect the output. Given the schema includes four parameters, the description leaves significant ambiguity about the full behavior and expected usage context.

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

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

The parameter descriptions are generic and partially mismatched with the tool's purpose. 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which is plausible, but 'host', 'json', and 'zone' have descriptions (e.g., 'JSON text to validate', 'IANA timezone name') that seem irrelevant to URL normalization. The descriptions do not clarify how these parameters interact with the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: returning origin, host, and path from a URL, and dropping query and fragment. This is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from other 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate-json or timezone. While the name and behavior imply URL processing, there is no direct guidance on 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 no behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or potential impacts. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to mention any operational details.

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 overly terse and lacks essential structure. While it is concise, it sacrifices all informative content, making it inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's function or usage.

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

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

The description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose beyond a vague label, does not relate the parameters to the functionality, and provides no examples or clarifications. The tool is contextually opaque.

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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) are entirely unrelated to the stated purpose of cataloging HTTP status codes. This mismatch makes the parameters meaningless without additional context, and the description does not explain their relevance.

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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' only restates the tool name without specifying any action or behavior. It fails to indicate what the tool does, such as retrieving, listing, or explaining status codes, and does not differentiate it from other 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it should be invoked. The description provides no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent completely uninformed.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'current time' without specifying the return format, error handling for invalid zones, or that only the zone parameter is used. The schema includes unrelated parameters (url, host, json) that are not addressed, leaving behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with zero waste, directly stating the core function. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it highly 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?

For a simple tool, the description omits the return format and does not clarify that only the zone parameter matters. The presence of unrelated parameters in the schema is not explained, and there is no output schema to describe return values. The description is incomplete for an agent to confidently call the tool correctly.

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

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

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, but the tool description adds no parameter-specific context. The description does not clarify that only 'zone' is relevant, and the other parameters appear unrelated. While the schema covers the parameters, the lack of clarification in the description does not add value beyond the schema and may mislead an agent about which parameters are actually 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 purpose: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. It uses a specific verb ('Current time') and resource ('named IANA timezone'), which distinguishes it from siblings like utc-time (presumably UTC) and iana-zones (list of 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?

The description implicitly tells an agent to use this when needing the current time in a specific timezone, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on when not to use it, such as comparing with utc-time for UTC or for listing zones. The condition is implied but not stated.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full weight. It does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, or how the input parameters relate to the output. The schema mismatch further obscures expected 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 concise but lacks essential context about the parameters and usage. It is brief but not effectively structured for 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 is grossly incomplete due to the contradiction between the description and the input schema. Critical information about required inputs, output format, and relationship to sibling tools is absent.

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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) have descriptions, but they are entirely unrelated to the stated purpose of returning a UTC timestamp. This is misleading and provides no meaningful semantic value for the tool.

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

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

The description 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the primary purpose, though it lacks a verb and is extremely terse. It is specific enough to understand the tool's main function.

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 siblings like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'. The description does not clarify conditions or alternatives.

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

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

The description mentions 'The body is discarded,' which gives a minimal hint about side-effects (no persistence). However, it does not disclose how the other parameters (url, host, zone) are used or whether any side-effects occur. With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility but falls short of transparency.

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

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

The description is very brief (single sentence), which is concise in word count. However, the brevity omits essential context about parameters and usage, making it efficient but lacking necessary detail. The structure is straightforward but not well-rounded.

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 schema has 4 parameters with confusing descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify the purpose of each parameter, how they interact, or what the expected input/output format is. This leaves an agent unable to correctly invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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

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

The schema descriptions are largely mismatched with the tool's purpose (e.g., 'url' described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'zone' described as 'IANA timezone name'). The description only references 'body' but does not explain the actual parameters or their roles. This provides no meaningful semantic guidance.

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

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

The description states a clear purpose: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This identifies the primary action and resource (JSON validation) without ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the tool name and purpose are sufficiently distinct.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, such as 'use this when you need to verify JSON syntax' or compare with sibling tools like normalize-url or timezone. There is no usage context at all.

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