Language it

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

The description discloses one behavioral aspect ('Page content is not stored'), but it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or the actual behavior for the non-URL parameters. The mismatch between description and parameters further obscures 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, but it is not concise in conveying the tool's purpose because it omits crucial context about the parameters. The structure is minimal but fails to be informative.

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 sibling tools, the description does not clarify how this tool fits into the broader set of operations (e.g., URL normalization, status cataloging, JSON validation). It lacks sufficient detail for an agent to understand when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

While each parameter has a schema description, the tool description does not explain how 'host', 'json', and 'zone' relate to the stated purpose of returning host, scheme, and HTTP status. The description actually conflicts with the parameter set, adding confusion rather than 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 a verb ('return') and a resource ('URL'), but the parameters (host, json, zone) do not align with the stated purpose of returning host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. This mismatch makes the tool's actual function 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 the sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, status-catalog, validate-json). The description does not mention any alternative or condition 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 statement 'No identifiers are retained' provides some privacy transparency, but the description does not disclose other relevant behavior such as whether it makes network calls, has side effects, requires authentication, or how input is handled. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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

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

The description is very short and contains no filler. It front-loads the main action and adds a privacy note in the second sentence, which is efficient and easy to scan.

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 ambiguous purpose and multiple heterogeneous parameters, the description is not complete enough. It lacks expected output format, classification categories, error behavior, and concrete examples, making it difficult for an agent to invoke it correctly in context.

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

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

All four parameters have brief descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. However, the descriptions are not strongly tied to the tool's purpose: 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' hint at behavior but do not clarify how these parameters relate to 'classification' or 'compatibility'.

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

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

The description 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not clearly state what the tool actually does or what 'classification' means. It gives no explicit action or resource, and relies heavily on the tool name 'compatibility' for context.

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 versus alternatives. With siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, and timezone, the description gives no conditions, examples, or criteria to help an agent choose this tool.

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

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

The description does not disclose side effects, read-only behavior, or any operational details beyond the vague 'without WHOIS or data' phrase.

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, but the awkward 'without WHOIS or data' phrase makes it confusing and poorly 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 mismatch between the described action and the unrelated parameters (json, timezone, url), the description lacks 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 schema describes each parameter individually, but the tool description does not clarify how 'url', 'json', or 'timezone' relate to splitting a hostname, leaving their roles ambiguous.

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 'split' and resource 'hostname' are clear, but the trailing phrase 'without WHOIS or data' is confusing and undermines clarity.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no context is given for the intended invocation.

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 discloses nothing about side effects, network access, authentication, rate limits, or return behavior. The one-line fragment places the full transparency burden on itself and says nothing.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence with no filler, and the key phrase 'IANA timezone names' appears early. It is concise and front-loaded, though the brevity sacrifices operational 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 four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and close sibling tools, the one-line fragment is severely under-specified. It does not state what the tool returns, how it behaves, or how it relates to siblings like 'timezone' or 'validate-json', whose purpose the url and json parameters echo.

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 all four parameters with descriptions, establishing the baseline of 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, and the parameter list (url, host, json, zone) appears mismatched with the stated timezone-name purpose, though 'zone' aligns.

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 closely restates the tool name 'iana-zones' without a verb, leaving the actual operation (list, validate, or resolve) unclear. It adds a vague usage context but does not distinguish this tool from siblings 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'timezone', 'utc-time', or 'normalize-url'. The only hint, 'for clock calls', is too vague to constitute actionable usage 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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It only mentions 'Fetch' and 'return group counts only', but does not clarify if it performs a network request, handles redirects or errors, or has any side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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

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

The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the main action, but it lacks structure for explaining parameters and usage. It is not verbose, but also not well-organized.

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 insufficient to understand how to use the tool correctly. The parameters are unrelated to the stated purpose, and there is no context on how the inputs relate to fetching robots.txt. The tool appears to be a template that was poorly adapted.

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 completely mismatched with the tool's purpose. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'json' as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', which are clearly for other tools (normalize-url, validate-json). These descriptions add confusion rather than meaning for a robots.txt inspection 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 a specific action ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and output ('return group counts only'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools. However, it lacks detail on what 'group counts' mean exactly.

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 simply states what it does without mentioning prerequisites, typical scenarios, or comparison to 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?

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavior, side effects, output format, or operational constraints. The agent receives no information about what the tool does beyond the minimal phrase.

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 contains no filler, but it is so under-specified that it fails to convey essential meaning. It is concise at the cost of being nearly useless.

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 language-tag purpose, the description is incomplete: it does not state inputs, outputs, behavior, or relationship to the four schema fields. There is no output schema and no additional context to fill the gaps.

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 descriptions for all four parameters, the parameters (url, host, json, zone) appear entirely disconnected from the 'language tag' purpose. The description provides no explanation of how these inputs relate to ISO 639 language tag processing.

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 it' is extremely vague and contains no verb, action, resource, or definite scope. It is unclear whether the tool returns, validates, translates, or checks a language tag, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone or normalize-url.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as citation, normalize-url, and validate-json are not mentioned, and no context is given for when a language-tag operation would be 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?

The description does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful behavioral information. However, with no annotations, it omits other important behavior such as error handling, input validation, or whether the operation is read-only.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core behavior without unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for the stated 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?

The description fails to address the extraneous parameters in the schema and provides no usage context, output format, or error-behavior notes. Given the confusing schema, the description is far from complete enough for an agent 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?

The schema includes three parameters (host, json, zone) whose descriptions are entirely unrelated to URL normalization, and the tool description does not explain them. Only the url parameter is coherent; the rest appear to be copy-paste errors, leaving the parameter semantics confusing and unusable.

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: return origin, host, and path from a URL while dropping query and fragment. This is specific and distinguishes it from the listed sibling tools.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as validate-json or domain-shape. It only states what the tool does, not the conditions or context that make it the appropriate choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'short catalog,' which implies a read-only lookup. It does not explain how the four input parameters affect the catalog, whether they are required, or what output is returned, leaving critical behavioral gaps.

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 free of fluff, which is good, but it is under-specified and reads as a fragment rather than an actionable tool definition. It is concise but not appropriately sized for a tool with four parameters and no other documentation.

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

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

The tool has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a single clause. It omits return format, how to invoke the catalog, what 'common' includes, and the relationship between the parameters and the catalog, making it far from complete.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter meanings are disconnected from the stated purpose: url is for normalizing/citing, json is for validation, and zone is for timezone names. The description adds no explanation of why these are relevant to a status-code catalog, so the high schema coverage does not actually help an agent call the tool correctly.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase, not an actionable verb+resource statement. It barely expands the tool name, and the input schema—url, host, json, zone—has no obvious connection to a catalog of HTTP status codes, making the purpose confusing.

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, what conditions favor it, or how it relates to the ten sibling tools. The description offers no context that would help an agent choose between status-catalog and tools like validate-json, normalize-url, 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?

There are no annotations describing side effects, read-only behavior, or error handling. The description only says 'Current time' and does not disclose what happens with invalid timezone names or unrelated inputs.

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 unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to read.

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 important context such as expected return format, error behavior, and relationship to sibling time-related tools. The schema contains multiple unrelated fields, making the overall tool contract incomplete and potentially misleading.

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?

Only the 'zone' parameter is relevant to the described purpose, but the schema also includes url, host, and json with unrelated descriptions. The presence of these unrelated parameters is confusing and not explained by the tool description.

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 the current time for a named IANA timezone, which matches the tool name. It is concise and understandable, though it does not describe the output format.

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

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

The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like utc-time or iana-zones. It implies use for named timezones but offers no explicit selection guidance.

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 behavioral traits are disclosed. There is no mention of network requests, side effects, or dependencies. The description is purely a statement of output with no explanation of how the tool behaves.

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, 'Current UTC time,' which is efficient and easily understood. There is no unnecessary verbosity.

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

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

Given the complexity of the input schema with four parameters that appear unrelated, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how the parameters affect the output, whether they are required, or any other contextual details needed to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Although the schema provides descriptions for each parameter (url, host, json, zone), these descriptions are about unrelated tasks like URL normalization, JSON validation, and timezone names. The tool description does not explain how these parameters relate to obtaining the current UTC time, so the parameter semantics are confusing and not helpful.

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 'Current UTC time,' clearly indicating the tool provides the current UTC time. However, the input schema contains parameters for URL, host, JSON, and timezone, which are unexplained and seem unrelated, creating confusion about the tool's actual purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'timezone' or others. The description lacks any conditions, examples, or differentiation from 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?

The description discloses one behavioral trait: 'The body is discarded,' implying no side effects or persistence. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., boolean, error message) or behavior on invalid JSON, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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

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

The description is concise and well-structured, consisting of two short sentences without unnecessary detail or redundancy.

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 due to the mismatch between the stated purpose and the schema parameters. It fails to explain how 'json' relates to the 'body' mentioned, and it omits crucial details about expected output or error handling, leaving the tool's full behavior under-specified.

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

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

The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, but only 'json' aligns with the tool's purpose. Parameters 'url', 'host', and 'zone' have descriptions that are unrelated to JSON validation, creating confusion about the tool's actual input requirements.

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 purpose: to check whether a body is valid JSON. The verb 'check' and resource 'body' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, and the mention of 'body' conflicts with the schema's 'json' parameter, creating minor ambiguity.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state scenarios where JSON validation is needed or how it differs from other tools like 'status-catalog' or 'timezone'.

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