Language hi

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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is a positive behavioral hint. However, it does not explain the behavior of the host, json, and zone parameters, which are present in the schema but unaddressed. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's actual behavior and possible side effects.

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

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

The description is exceptionally concise—two short sentences with no unnecessary words. The primary function is front-loaded, and the secondary note about non-storage is placed second without disrupting 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description should still cover the role of all parameters, the output format, and potential error behavior. It does none of these. The mismatched schema parameters create gaps that the description fails to fill, leaving an agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Although the schema has 100% parameter coverage, the parameter descriptions appear generic and mismatched (e.g., 'JSON text to validate' for a tool that returns HTTP status). The tool description does not clarify the roles of host, json, or zone, thus failing to add meaningful semantic value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's core function: returning host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog by specifying the exact output fields.

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

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

The description implies its use case (checking URL host/scheme/status) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as normalize-url or inspect-robots. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions that would rule out other 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 full burden of explaining side effects, output, and data handling. It only promises that identifiers are not retained, leaving the actual behavior and potential errors 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 text is brief and front-loaded, with no redundant wording. However, the brevity omits essential context about the tool's purpose, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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

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

The tool has no output schema, no required parameters, and no annotations, and the description does not explain the classification result, categories, or parameter usage. It is not complete enough for an agent to know when or how to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Each parameter has a short schema description, but those descriptions are generic and seem copied from other tools (URL normalize/cite, JSON validate, timezone). The description does not explain how url, host, json, and zone relate to 'classification' or how they should be populated for this tool.

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

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

The description states it will 'show how this request is classified' but does not define what classification means or what resource is being classified. It does not differentiate this tool from the sibling tools, several of which also operate on URLs, JSON, or timezones.

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 this tool instead of the siblings. The only additional note, 'No identifiers are retained,' is a privacy statement, not a usage criterion.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that WHOIS/ownership data is not included, but it does not describe return format, error handling, behavior with invalid or non-hostname inputs, or what happens when multiple parameters are supplied. The tool's behavior with url, json, and zone is entirely unexplained, leaving significant behavioral opacity.

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 action. It is appropriately brief and avoids verbosity. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices explanatory value, but from a pure conciseness standpoint 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?

For a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the non-hostname parameters, how the tool chooses which input to process, or what the output looks like. An agent would have to guess which parameter to pass and what to expect in return, making the description insufficient for correct invocation.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, nor does it explain why url, json, or zone are relevant to splitting a hostname into labels. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description does not need to repeat that, but it also does not add value on parameter usage or format.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Split a hostname into labels') and adds a differentiator ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which helps distinguish it from some siblings. However, it fails to clarify how the four input parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to this core function, leaving ambiguity about what inputs are actually accepted for the splitting operation.

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 the ten siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between domain-shape and normalize-url, inspect-robots, or iana-zones. The only hint is the 'without WHOIS' phrase, but it does not explicitly state a preferred use case or comparison.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior, but it says nothing about side effects, return format, or how the parameters interact. The claim about 'clock calls' is unhelpful and leaves the agent guessing about what happens when a url, host, or json is supplied.

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 under-specified to the point of being a placeholder. Conciseness is not the same as adequacy; here the brevity prevents the tool from being usable.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clarify the operation, parameter roles, and return value. It does none of this, so an agent cannot correctly select or invoke the tool based on this definition.

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 each parameter individually, but the tool description adds no meaning about how they relate to timezone names. The high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, but the description fails to connect the parameters to the stated purpose, leaving the agent without guidance on which parameters to supply or how they combine.

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' hints at a reference list but never states what the tool does (e.g., returns a list, validates a zone, or converts). No verb or resource is specified, and the parameters (url, host, json, zone) suggest broader functionality that the description does not explain. It is not a tautology but is far too vague to be actionable.

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 its siblings like timezone or utc-time. No alternatives are mentioned, and the description does not indicate a context in which this tool is preferred.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It implies a read-only fetch but does not mention failure handling, timeouts, or what happens if robots.txt is absent. The mismatch in parameter descriptions 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 a single, short sentence that is efficient and gets to the point 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 incomplete for an agent to use correctly: no details on required input format, output structure, error conditions, or how the parameters relate to the task. The mismatched parameter descriptions create additional confusion.

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 copied from unrelated tools (e.g., 'normalize or cite' for url, 'validate' for json) and do not match the tool's purpose. This is seriously misleading and fails to clarify how 'url' or 'host' should be used for 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 verb 'Fetch' and resource 'robots.txt' clearly state the core action, and 'return group counts only' specifies the output. However, the parameter descriptions are confusing and could mislead about what the tool actually does.

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 phrase 'group counts only' hints at a distinction but does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states a language tag, omitting any details about side effects, return format, or how inputs are processed. 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 extremely short (6 words) but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no structure or front-loading of essential information, and every sentence (the only sentence) fails to earn its place by adding minimal value.

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

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

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It leaves unanswered the tool's function, expected inputs, and outputs, so an agent cannot determine 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter context. The description does not explain how url, host, json, or zone relate to the language tag, but the schema already documents each parameter.

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

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

The description 'ISO 639 language tag hi' states a language tag but does not specify the tool's action. It lacks a verb (e.g., 'identify', 'return', 'tag') and does not clarify how the four input parameters relate to the tag. It gives a hint about output but not the tool's purpose, making it ambiguous for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many siblings like citation, normalize-url, or validate-json. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful. However, it fails to explain behavior regarding the other schema parameters (host, json, zone), error handling, input validation, or output format. The description is silent on these, leaving significant behavioral gaps for an agent.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary action and then adds a key detail (dropping query and fragment). This is an efficient use of text.

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 4 parameters but no output schema, so the description must explain the full behavior. It only addresses the 'url' parameter and the output components, but leaves the other parameters unexplained. There is no mention of return format, error cases, or how the 'host', 'json', and 'zone' parameters might affect behavior. This is incomplete for a tool with such a broad schema.

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

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

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the 'url' parameter by specifying the output components (origin, host, path). However, it does not clarify the purpose of the other parameters (host, json, zone), which are unrelated to URL normalization. The description does not compensate for this ambiguity, so it stays at 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 clearly states the tool's function: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment. This is specific and distinguishes it from general URL utilities. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'citation' or 'compatibility', so it loses a point for lacking direct sibling distinction.

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 neither mentions specific use cases, prerequisites, nor exclusions. The agent is left to infer that it is for URL normalization, but there is no explicit routing to the correct tool based on 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, side effects, or dependencies. The description gives no such information, making the tool's operational impact entirely 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 brief and to the point in terms of length, but it sacrifices clarity and usefulness. It omits essential information that could be conveyed concisely, such as the operation performed or parameter relevance, making the brevity a drawback rather than a strength.

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 simplicity, the description is still incomplete because it fails to explain the tool's function, parameter usage, or relationship to sibling tools. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the actual parameters further compounds the incompleteness, leaving the agent without adequate 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 description does not explain how the parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to a catalog of HTTP status codes. The schema-level descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') suggest a purpose unrelated to the stated catalog, creating a semantic mismatch that leaves parameter roles completely unexplained.

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

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

The description states the tool is a 'short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which conveys a subject matter but lacks an explicit action verb or explanation of what the tool does with the provided parameters (url, host, json, zone). It does not clarify whether it returns a list, fetches a status, or validates something, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json or inspect-robots.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate use cases, input requirements, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be preferred, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose that the schema includes url, host, and json parameters that appear unrelated to timezone lookup. This mismatch can mislead an agent into passing those parameters. It also doesn't state whether extra parameters are ignored or rejected.

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 and easy to parse, with no extraneous words. It sacrifices necessary disambiguation but is well-structured.

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

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

Given the mismatched schema, the description is too sparse to resolve ambiguities or explain how the extra parameters relate to the tool. It also omits any note about return format or side effects, making it incomplete for reliable selection.

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 parameters, but the description only reinforces the zone parameter. It adds no clarification for url, host, or json, which seem copied from other tools and conflict with the tool's 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose as returning current time in a named IANA timezone, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like utc-time and iana-zones. However, it does not explicitly use an imperative verb or mention that the schema contains unrelated fields.

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?

Description implies use when a local time in a named IANA timezone is needed, rather than UTC or zone listing. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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 offers minimal behavioral detail beyond the tool name. It does not specify output format, timezone handling, or precision, and annotations are absent. For a tool that simply returns the current UTC timestamp, more detail on the format would improve 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 one sentence and is appropriately short. It says exactly what it needs to without any fluff. However, the ultra-brief style leaves no room for necessary details in other dimensions.

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 details about the output format, timezone behavior, or parameter usage. Although it's a simple tool, an agent might need to know the format of the timestamp. This makes it insufficient for complete 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 description does not explain any parameters, despite there being 4 parameters in the schema. The schema descriptions are 100% covered, but the description itself adds no value toward parameter understanding. The parameters seem unrelated to simply getting a UTC timestamp, creating potential confusion for an agent.

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

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

The description is simple and clear but slightly vague on purpose. It explicitly identifies the action and resource (return current UTC timestamp), but it is too short to distinguish from possible sibling tools that might also return time-related information.

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 compared to alternatives. No mention of contexts, limitations, or explicit exclusions. However, the tool name and description make the usage fairly obvious for a simple time tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the body is discarded, which is a minor side effect, but this is already stated in the schema's description of the 'json' parameter. The description does not disclose return values, error behavior on invalid JSON, or any side effects beyond discarding. For a validation tool, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is only two sentences, which is concise, but the second sentence ('The body is discarded') is redundant with the schema's parameter description for 'json'. It does not earn its place. The first sentence front-loads the purpose but omits essential details like which parameter to use, so it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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

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

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error message), how it handles invalid JSON, or which parameter is the 'body'. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from the description alone, even with the 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so all four parameters (url, host, json, zone) already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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

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

The description states a clear action: check whether a body is valid JSON. It names a specific resource (JSON body) and a specific verb (check). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but none of the listed siblings (citation, compatibility, etc.) appear to overlap with JSON validation, so the purpose is fairly unique. The description could be clearer about which parameter holds the body, but the schema covers that.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no statement about when not to use it or how it compares to other tools. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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