Language ga

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 does reveal that task text is discarded and that some parameters are only length/shape checked, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'connection methods' means. The stated purpose of finding a gateway for a task is contradicted by the note that task text is discarded, so the actual behavior remains 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 short and to the point: it states the goal, the output, and a key behavioral caveat in three sentences. There is no redundant content, though the phrasing 'public pay-per-call tool gateway' is awkward and could be clearer.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what to provide, whether all parameters are truly optional, what 'connection methods' looks like, or what happens if no parameters are supplied. The tool remains hard 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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description such as 'discarded after the length check' or 'no disk access.' The tool description adds little beyond the schema; it does not clarify how to choose among the nine optional parameters or how they relate to the stated purpose, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 general goal ('Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway') and output ('Returns connection methods'), but the selection mechanism is unclear. It lists example tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice, yet immediately undercuts this by saying 'Task text discarded,' so it is not clear what input actually drives the tool.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of any of the many sibling tools (e.g., weather-hint, search-query-len, normalize-url). No conditions, prerequisites, or examples of appropriate invocation are provided, and the sentence about task text being discarded makes the intended usage even less clear.

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 disclosing side effects and behavior. It only says no browser is launched, but does not clarify whether network requests are made, whether data is stored, or what side effects might occur. The schema descriptions hint at 'discarded after shape check' but the tool description itself is insufficient.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it omits important usage and behavioral details.

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 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, yet the description gives almost no context about how to invoke it, which parameter to provide, what result to expect, or how it relates to sibling tools. This is inadequate for a tool with this level of input complexity.

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

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

The schema has 9 optional properties with descriptions, but they are confusing and largely unrelated to the stated purpose of checking whether a URL can be opened. For example, 'url' says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than 'open', and parameters like 'ref', 'city', and 'zone' seem irrelevant. The description adds no clarification about which parameter is the actual URL to check.

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 ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a meaningful qualifier ('No browser is launched'). It is reasonably clear, though 'can be opened' is slightly ambiguous about whether this means syntactic validity, reachability, or something else.

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

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

The description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., playwright-url-ok, fetch-status, normalize-url). The 'No browser is launched' note implies a distinction but does not state it clearly or mention 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 'Expression discarded', hinting at no persistence, but it does not disclose any side effects or behaviors related to the nine parameters in the schema. Without annotations, this leaves significant gaps in 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 concise, but the structure is minimal—two short phrases. It is not overly verbose, yet it lacks meaningful organization or detail that would aid understanding.

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

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

Given the tool has nine parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the arithmetic operation, what inputs are expected, or what the tool returns. The description fails to provide essential context for correct usage.

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 does not explain any of the parameters, and the schema parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL') are completely unrelated to arithmetic. This mismatch makes the parameters effectively meaningless in the context of 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 clearly states the tool evaluates a+b style arithmetic, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like validate-json or search-query-len, though it does not elaborate on the exact form of arithmetic.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. It only states the action without 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?

The description discloses that page content is not stored, but it does not explain how the many optional parameters (e.g., city, zone, query) are handled beyond the schema notes saying they are discarded. With no annotations provided, this minimal disclosure leaves uncertainty about side effects, network behavior, or why those parameters exist.

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, using two short sentences to convey the core behavior and a constraint. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary detail 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 description lacks context about the output format (how host, scheme, and HTTP status are returned), error handling, and the role of the eight optional parameters that seem unrelated to the stated purpose. Given the complexity of the input schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including those marked as discarded, so the baseline is 3. However, the description itself does not add meaning to these parameters; it only mentions the URL. The schema descriptions supply the discard behavior, but the description fails to clarify the purpose of the extraneous parameters or how they relate to the core function.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, and explicitly notes that page content is not stored. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like web-fetch (which fetches content) or fetch-status (which might have different semantics).

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 fetch-status. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or when a different sibling would be more appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'No identifiers are retained,' which addresses data retention but not side effects, read-only status, network access, or output format. The behavior of discarding inputs is partially inferred from schema descriptions but not from the description itself.

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 two short sentences with no redundancy, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance. It is concise in length but not well-structured for conveying purpose, as the key information is absent.

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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool does with these inputs and what it returns. It only mentions classification and privacy, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a brief purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description states 'Show how this request is classified' but never defines what classification means, what categories exist, or what output to expect. It is too vague to distinguish from the many sibling tools, some of which also inspect requests (e.g., fetch-status, web-fetch). The verb 'show' and resource 'request' are generic.

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 any of the 28 siblings. It does not mention alternatives, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the parameter names.

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 honestly notes that WHOIS and ownership data are not returned, which is helpful. However, it does not explain that many of the accepted optional parameters appear to be ignored or discarded, leaving some 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, short sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is effectively sized 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 adequate for a simple splitting operation, but it does not specify the output format or which schema field is the primary input. Given the broad optional parameter list and lack of an output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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

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

The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline applies. The tool description adds no extra clarity about how the nine optional parameters relate to the hostname-splitting 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 states a specific operation—splitting a hostname into labels—and adds a useful negative boundary by saying it provides no WHOIS or ownership data. This clearly distinguishes it from lookup-oriented 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 intended use is implied: use it when you need to split a hostname into labels. The 'without WHOIS or ownership data' clause also hints at when not to use it, but no explicit alternative or conditional guidance is 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 implies a read-only network operation via HEAD, but does not disclose that all other parameters are discarded, nor does it explain what 'status' means (e.g., HTTP status code). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it is insufficient for a tool with 9 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 sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the key action. While it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue. The brevity is appropriate given the limited content.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or what 'status' entails. It also fails to clarify that non-url parameters are ignored, which could lead to misuse. An agent would not know what to expect from the call.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by clarifying that 'url' is the primary parameter, but it does not explain the purpose of the other 8 parameters. The schema already states they are discarded, so the description does not go beyond the schema in meaning.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'HEAD a public URL and return status only.' This is clear about the core action. However, it does not mention the other 8 parameters, making the tool's full scope ambiguous. The name and description together are specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or playwright-url-ok, but the lack of coverage for other params prevents a 5.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as browser-url-ok or playwright-url-ok. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would direct an agent to choose this tool over others. This is a significant gap.

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 is the only source of behavior. It only mentions that a path is discarded; there is no indication of side effects, output, errors, network access, or read-only guarantees.

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 no filler. The second sentence adds a behavioral detail, but it is terse to the point of 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?

The description is far from complete for a tool with nine varied parameters and no output schema. It never explains why city, feed, json, zone, query, etc. are accepted, what the parsed shape looks like, or what the caller 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little to parameter meaning, and 'Path discarded' may confuse the separate 'path' parameter, but it does not override 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 the core task—parsing a Figma file URL—but never clarifies what 'shape' means or what result is returned. The nine unrelated parameters further blur the tool's intended 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 for when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. It does not mention any selection criteria or 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?

The description explicitly promises 'No disk access,' which is useful transparency, but it says nothing about return values, error behavior, or what 'safe' means, leaving the tool's behavior largely 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?

Two short sentences with no redundant words; the key statement is front-loaded and the no-disk-access caveat is included.

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 sparse for the tool's apparent complexity: no output schema, no safety criteria, no error conditions, and no explanation of the many accepted parameters.

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 path parameter has a clear description, but the input schema includes eight other parameters whose descriptions read as unrelated to path safety (e.g., url, city, feed, zone), and the tool description does not explain whether or how they 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 object: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' However, 'safe' is undefined and no criterion is given, and it doesn't distinguish this from other shape-checking siblings beyond the path focus.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives like domain-shape or browser-url-ok, nor are prerequisites or intended contexts mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the schema descriptions introduce contradictory behavior hints ('discarded after the shape check', 'discarded after the call') that conflict with the stated purpose of returning coordinates. The external Open-Meteo dependency is mentioned but failure modes, rate limits, or side effects are not 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. However, the schema's parameter set is large and disorganized, detracting from the overall structural 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the response format, which parameter drives the lookup, how errors are reported, or why unrelated parameters exist.

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 (100% coverage), but most are clearly mismatched with the geocoding purpose — ref, url, feed, host, json, and path appear copied from unrelated tools. Only city and query plausibly relate to geocoding, leaving the agent uncertain which parameter to actually use.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place using Open-Meteo, which distinguishes it from siblings like weather-hint. However, it lacks an explicit verb and the schema parameters (ref, url, feed, etc.) create confusion about the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that city or query should be used for geocoding, nor does it cross-reference related tools like weather-hint or iana-zones.

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 states it parses owner and repo, but does not mention that many input parameters (city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are discarded or irrelevant. There is no mention of side effects, return format, or limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with a large schema.

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 fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could arguably be expanded to cover more behavior, but as a concise statement it 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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It only explains a fraction of the tool's behavior (parsing owner and repo from a URL) while the schema suggests it handles a variety of inputs (weather hints, RSS feeds, JSON validation, timezones, etc.). An agent cannot understand the full scope, what parameters to pass, or what to expect as output. This is a critical gap for a tool with such a complex 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 coverage is 100%, so all 9 parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'owner and repo' which are not explicit parameters but extraction targets. Since the schema covers the parameters, the baseline of 3 applies, but the description does not clarify which parameters are actually relevant or how they interact with the parsing 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.' This distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or figma-url-shape by the explicit GitHub context. However, it does not mention any alternative tools or scope limitations, so it lacks sibling differentiation beyond the GitHub URL focus.

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 other shape-checking siblings. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned. The description only states the action without any contextual routing, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, return format, error behavior, or the fact that many input parameters appear to be ignored. The tool's behavior remains opaque.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded, consisting of two brief sentences. It loses some value due to the confusing 'Titles discarded' clause, but overall it is 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?

The description is far too minimal given the tool's 9 optional parameters and lack of an output schema. It does not explain parameter roles, return values, or when this tool should be preferred over related siblings.

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

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

Although every parameter has a schema description, the descriptions are generic and unrelated to the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint'). They do not clarify how any parameter affects counting HN front-page stories.

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'), the resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), and is distinct enough from siblings. However, the phrase 'Titles discarded' is ambiguous and could confuse the exact 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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like web-fetch or fetch-status, nor does it explain the expected input/output 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what the tool does, what side effects exist, whether it validates, returns data, or has any impact. The parameter descriptions hint at 'discarded' inputs, but the main description offers no behavioral insight.

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. While it is concise in word count, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It does not front-load any actionable information and provides no structure.

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

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

This tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, making it relatively complex. The description is completely inadequate, failing to explain the tool's purpose, parameter usage, return value, or any operational context. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly 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?

While schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are confusing and unrelated to the tool's apparent purpose (e.g., 'url' and 'json' in a timezone tool). The tool description adds no clarification about why these parameters exist or how they relate to the tool's function, so it fails to add 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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase that does not state any action or function. It suggests the tool deals with timezone names but not whether it lists, validates, or returns them. It also does not differentiate 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when it is appropriate, when not, or which sibling tool to prefer. The description is silent on usage context entirely.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it fetches and returns group counts but does not disclose any side effects, network behavior, or whether it is read-only. It also does not explain how the various parameters are used, leaving behavior 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 concise, but the schema is bloated with 9 parameters, most of which have no obvious connection to the tool's stated purpose. The overall structure is confusing and could have been simplified to just a URL parameter.

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 what 'group counts' means, what the output format is, or how the parameters (if any) should be used. There is no output schema, so the agent has insufficient information to confidently invoke 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?

The schema has 9 parameters with descriptions, but these descriptions are irrelevant to robots.txt. For example, 'ref' is 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' and 'city' is 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call'. These descriptions are misleading and do not clarify how any parameter relates to fetching a robots.txt file. They appear to be generic placeholders.

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: 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.' This distinguishes it from general fetch tools like web-fetch.

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 over alternatives such as web-fetch or fetch-status. It does not mention scenarios where group counts are needed.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Key discarded' hints at side-effect-free operation but does not explain what the tool returns, whether it performs network access, or why the schema includes unrelated fields like 'city' and 'feed'. The description is too sparse to convey any meaningful behavioral traits.

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) but not structured or informative. It front-loads the purpose but then introduces an unexplained 'Key discarded' statement. It is under-specification rather than concise efficiency, as it omits essential routing information.

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, all optional, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling shape-checking tools, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameter is the Jira key, what the output format is, or how to avoid misusing the tool. The definition fails to cover the basic invocation contract.

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

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

Schema descriptions are present (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds no mapping between any parameter and the Jira key concept. The parameter descriptions themselves are generic ('discarded after the shape check') and do not clarify which one holds the key or how to supply it, so the value added beyond the schema is minimal.

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 a Jira issue key shape') but fails to connect that purpose to any of the nine input parameters, none of which are labeled as a Jira key. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the schema makes it unclear what the agent should pass as the key, so the tool's actual function is ambiguous.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github-repo-shape' or 'domain-shape'. The description gives no context, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools, leaving the agent without any decision support for selection.

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

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

The description reveals no behavioral details such as side effects, return values, or error conditions. With no annotations, the agent has no idea what invoking this tool will do.

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, which is concise, but it is far too terse to be useful. It lacks any structural breakdown of what the tool does or how the parameters relate to the tool's purpose.

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 contextual information about the tool's role, expected inputs, or output. The description and schema together do not form a complete picture, leaving the agent unable to make an informed invocation decision.

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 have descriptions, but they are generic and unrelated to language tags (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no meaning to these parameters, and their purpose is completely 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 'ISO 639 language tag ga' is extremely vague and does not explain what the tool actually does. It fails to indicate whether it validates, converts, or checks language tags, and the sibling tool list offers no clarification.

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 or how to use this tool. No examples, prerequisites, or conditions are provided, leaving the agent without any practical direction.

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

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

The description discloses that the body is discarded, and the schema descriptions note that most parameters are discarded after a shape check. However, the tool does not explain what 'hint' means, whether a network request is made, or why fields like city and weather are included, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

The description is short and to the point, stating the core action and a key behavior (body discarded) in a single sentence. It is concise, though it could be more complete without becoming verbose.

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

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

The description is extremely sparse for a tool with 9 parameters and many sibling tools. It does not explain what a 'lib-docs-hint' is, how the HTTP status is returned, why unrelated parameters exist, or what the caller should provide. This leaves the tool's operation largely unexplained.

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

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

The schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. Each parameter has an explicit description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). Yet many of these descriptions seem irrelevant to the stated purpose of checking library docs URLs, which weakens the semantic clarity.

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

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

The description states the tool returns an HTTP status for a public library docs URL, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not clarify which input parameter holds the URL, and the presence of many unrelated schema fields (e.g., city, zone, query) makes the intended 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 provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The description lacks any mention of alternative tools or conditions that would favor this one.

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. It mentions 'Values discarded' but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

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, pithy sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary detail, though slightly more context would improve usability.

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

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

The description fails to specify which parameter contains the JSON object, what constitutes a 'key' (nested keys vs top-level), or what the output format is. This lack of essential context makes the tool difficult 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 schema descriptions for parameters (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') are generic and misleading. They do not clarify that only 'json' is relevant for counting keys, leaving an agent confused about which parameters to provide.

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 primary function: counting keys in a JSON object. However, the presence of nine unrelated parameters in the schema creates ambiguity about which input actually represents the JSON, preventing a perfect score.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like validate-json or file-path-ok. The description does not mention any specific use case or comparison with sibling tools.

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 burden of disclosing side effects. 'Return' implies a read-only operation and dropping query/fragment describes normalization behavior, but it does not address errors, network access, or whether any input is ignored.

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

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

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and a key behavioral rule without filler. Every word contributes to understanding 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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not specify the return format (e.g., separate fields or a string) or behavior for invalid/missing input. The unusual optional parameters are left unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently call the tool.

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

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

The schema exposes nine optional parameters, most of which are unrelated to URL normalization (ref, city, feed, json, zone, query). The description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they interact; for example, 'query' is described as 'Search text', not as a URL query to be dropped.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Return origin, host, and path') and a clear behavioral rule ('Query and fragment are dropped'), making the core purpose unambiguous. It lacks a precise mention of the input parameter or output shape, but the URL focus is clear enough.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as browser-url-ok, web-fetch, or fetch-status. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or use cases, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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 only that no browser is launched, but says nothing about side effects, return behavior, rate limits, 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 extremely brief and to the point, with no meaningless filler or redundant clauses. It uses only two sentences and gets directly to the action.

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 critically incomplete given the tool's complexity: 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how the parameters are used, or any operational context, making it insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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

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

The schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so no additional parameter meaning is required. However, the main description adds no extra insight into the parameters, and the schema descriptions themselves are minimal.

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 ('Check whether a URL can be opened') but does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, and the many unrelated parameters (city, json, zone) make the intended 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions that would favor it. The description lacks any usage context or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states the query is discarded, which suggests no persistence, but it does not mention return format, error behavior, or that unrelated schema parameters are ignored.

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

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

The description is two short sentences and immediately states the core action and a key side effect. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail.

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

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

The tool has a deceptively large schema with multiple optional parameters, yet the description does not explain that only the query parameter is used or how the other parameters should be handled. The lack of output schema information also leaves the return value unspecified.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, many parameter descriptions reference unrelated concepts (URLs, city names, JSON validation, file paths) that do not align with counting characters. The query parameter description is relevant, but the overall schema is confusing about which parameters actually affect the operation.

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 counts characters in a search query, giving a specific verb and object. It could more explicitly tie the query parameter to the main action, but the purpose is understandable.

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 tools that also deal with counts or validation. The description does not explain the intended context or alternative 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Short catalog', implying a read-only reference, but does not disclose side effects, return format, or how the parameters are used. The schema hints at validation and discarding, but the description itself adds no behavioral 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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded, stating the resource immediately. It is appropriately sized for a simple catalog, though it lacks detail, but for conciseness it scores well.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain how the parameters are used together, what the tool returns, or any usage context. The schema provides per-parameter details but not the overall workflow, so the description 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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how the parameters relate to the catalog, but the schema already documents each parameter's role (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), so the agent can understand them from 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 the tool provides a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes', which clearly conveys its purpose. However, it does not distinguish it from the many sibling tools, and the presence of nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) is confusing, so it is not fully differentiated.

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 any context, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and 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, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Prompt discarded', which hints that inputs are ignored, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens to the parameters, or what the returned template looks like. This is minimal transparency and leaves critical safety and side-effect 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 only one sentence, which is efficient, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It is not appropriately sized because it omits essential information that would fit in a few more sentences. The brevity is not a virtue here.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the three-step template is, how the parameters influence the result, what the return value looks like, or any error conditions. An agent cannot call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already explains each parameter and notes it is discarded after a shape check. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter roles, formats, or relationships, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 'Return a three-step thinking template' – a specific verb and resource, but it never explains what the template contains or how it relates to the nine parameters. It is not a tautology, but it is too vague to distinguish from siblings like calc-eval or validate-json, and the phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The description does not mention any conditions or context for invocation, leaving the agent to guess whether this is a fallback, a utility, or a meta-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, and the description only mentions returning current time. The input schema contains several irrelevant parameters, which could mislead agents about actual behavior, and it does not clarify that only 'zone' is used.

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 redundant information, effectively communicating the tool's core function.

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 the description does not specify the output format (e.g., ISO 8601) or whether any parameters are required (e.g., 'zone' is essential but not marked as required). Additional context is needed for reliable 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 description does not explain which parameters are meaningful. Although the schema describes each parameter, most are clearly unrelated to timezone (e.g., 'ref', 'url', 'json') and appear to be template artifacts, leaving ambiguity about the required 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 clearly states the tool returns the current time for a named IANA timezone, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases like local time conversions or fallbacks.

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

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

No annotations are provided and the description does not mention side effects, ignored inputs, permissions, or the fact that all parameters appear to be discarded, so the agent cannot anticipate the tool's behavior beyond the returned timestamp.

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 phrase with no filler, but it is so terse that it reads more like a title than a functional description; still, it earns its place.

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 gives the core output but omits output format, examples, and any explanation of the 9 optional parameters, leaving the overall context incomplete for an agent deciding how to call it.

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

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

Although the schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions, those descriptions are mostly unrelated to UTC time and several say the value is discarded; the tool description adds no clarification on why these parameters exist or how they affect the output.

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 the current UTC timestamp, which is a clear resource but lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from sibling tools like timezone or 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 for when to use this tool instead of siblings, nor when to pass parameters. The description merely states the output and leaves usage entirely to inference.

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 only behavioral note is that the body is discarded, which hints at no persistence, but there is no mention of side effects, network/file access, errors, or return behavior. With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does not meet it.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded, with no redundant filler. It loses a point because the second sentence adds only a minimal side-effect note and the overall brevity sacrifices needed parameter mapping.

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

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

Given nine optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know what input to provide or what result to expect. It supplies a purpose but omits the operational details needed to call the tool reliably.

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

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

The input schema lists nine parameters with unrelated descriptions (Git refs, URLs, city/weather hints, feed titles, paths, zones, queries). The description does not explain whether only 'json' is used or what 'body' maps to; several parameter descriptions are actively misleading for a JSON validator.

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 concrete purpose—checking whether a body is valid JSON—but it never identifies which schema parameter is the 'body' or how this relates to the nine listed properties. It is distinct enough from siblings but leaves the core object 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 about when to use validate-json instead of related tools such as web-fetch, fetch-status, or normalize-url. No scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency, but it only says 'via Open-Meteo.' It does not disclose that it makes an external network request, that it is read-only, which parameters are actually consumed, or how failures are surfaced.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no 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 nine-parameter schema and absence of output schema/annotations, the description is too thin: it omits units, required parameters, response shape, and error behavior, leaving an agent to guess how to call it.

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

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

Although every schema property has a description, most are unrelated to weather (ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query), and the tool description does not clarify that city is the operative parameter. With zero required parameters, invocation is ambiguous and no format/unit constraints are given.

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. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools, but the input schema includes eight unrelated optional parameters, so the actual scope is muddied.

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?

Usage is only implied: use when a current city temperature is needed. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, though the simple weather purpose makes the intended case reasonably inferable.

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 disclose that the body is discarded, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it omits other important details like whether redirects are followed, timeouts, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 core purpose ('HTTP status and content type'). It is efficient with no wasted words. However, it may be too brief, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how the many parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) fit into the tool's operation or whether the tool handles multiple check types beyond URL status. The description only covers the URL case, leaving agents uncertain about the other parameters and the expected response format.

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 the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how the parameters relate to the tool's behavior; it only mentions 'URL' while the schema lists 9 parameters with varied purposes. The description does not help clarify which parameter is relevant for the primary function.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns HTTP status and content type for a public URL, and that the body is discarded. This is a specific verb+resource outcome. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, leaving the agent to infer which one to use.

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. There is no mention of scenarios where this should be chosen over fetch-status, normalize-url, or other siblings. The agent is left to infer usage from the minimal description.

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 says 'Title discarded after the call', which hints at no data retention, but it is unclear because there is no 'title' field in the schema. There is no mention of side effects, errors, or other behavioral details. No annotations are provided to supplement.

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

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

The description is concise (one sentence), but the structure is confusing due to the disconnect between the declared purpose and the schema. There is no additional structure to help the agent understand the tool's operation.

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 a parameter for the title, which is essential for its stated purpose. There is also no information about the return value or how to interpret the result. The tool is incomplete for its intended 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?

All 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) have descriptions that are irrelevant to checking a Wikipedia title. The descriptions appear copied from other tools and do not clarify how to specify the title or how these parameters relate to the described 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 clear purpose ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists'), but the input schema contains no 'title' parameter, making it ambiguous how to actually invoke the tool. The purpose is undermined by the mismatch between description and 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 context, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools such as 'browser-url-ok' or 'fetch-status'.

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