Language ms

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

With no annotations provided, the description is responsible for behavioral disclosure, and it does disclose some: 'Returns connection methods' and 'Task text discarded.' This tells the agent the tool is a lookup/directory and that inputs are not retained. However, it leaves out other behavioral details such as whether any external calls occur, performance characteristics, or what exactly a 'connection method' string/list looks like.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence names the purpose, and the follow-up sentence adds the useful discard/discard behavior and output summary. Each of the three sentences earns its place, with no redundant or filler wording.

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

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

This is a 9-parameter, optional-complex tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description provides only a one-line summary and a discard note. It does not explain how to select or combine the optional parameters to influence the lookup, what the 'connection methods' actually look like, or how to interpret a successful/failed call. The agent needs more to call this tool effectively.

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 carries its own description, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description itself does not explain parameters. The description's task examples (weather, search, scrape) hint at some parameter mappings (city, query, url), but it does not explicitly connect them to the schema fields.

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: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway' for task types like weather, search, scrape, or voice. It also says it 'Returns connection methods,' which clarifies a distinct goal from just performing the task. However, it does not explicitly distinguish these from the sibling tools (e.g., weather-hint or search-query-len), leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings, nor any 'when not to use' or alternative tooling. The examples in the description imply a use case ('for a task such as weather...'), but that is too thin to serve as practical selection guidance among similar-looking 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 present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency, and it only discloses that no browser is launched. It does not reveal whether a network request is made, what side effects or outputs to expect, whether results are boolean, why the returned data means, or any environment/authorization implications.

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, front-loads the core action, and every word earns its place. It is not bloated, and the second sentence adds the key distinguishing behavior ('No browser is launched').

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 check-style tool with nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine the expected return value, how the check is performed, the intended use of the various input fields, or what would happen on success, failure, or edge cases.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents all nine parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the high-coverage baseline that is acceptable. Still, the many unrelated optional fields are not tied back to the check behavior, potentially leaving agents uncertain about which parameters are relevant.

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') on a specific resource, and 'No browser is launched' helps separate it from siblings like playwright-url-ok. However, it never defines what 'can be opened' means — HTTP 200, URL syntax, DNS resolution, etc.—so some ambiguity remains.

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 such as fetch-status, web-fetch, or playwright-url-ok. 'No browser is launched' only hints at the intended lightweight use case, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the full load of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Expression discarded' is not meaningful since no expression parameter exists; it does not say whether the tool mutates state, returns a result, or why inputs are discarded.

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, but brevity is not useful when it sacrifices clarity. The second sentence, 'Expression discarded,' is confusing and does not earn its place; a short but misleading description is worse than a longer, clear one.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, 0 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is critically insufficient. An agent has no way to infer the intended input or whether this is the right tool for a task.

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, but the tool description adds no parameter-level value and actually misrepresents the interface by implying an expression parameter that is not present. An agent cannot map the arithmetic use-case onto any of the nine named string parameters.

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 claims 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic,' but the input schema defines no arithmetic expression parameter. All nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are described as being discarded or checked, so the tool's actual purpose is opaque and likely misleading for an agent looking to perform 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings like web-fetch, normalize-url, or validate-json. No conditions, prerequisites, exclusions, or examples are given.

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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes 'Page content is not stored,' which is a minor privacy hint, but does not disclose that it likely makes an HTTP request, whether it follows redirects, what happens with the many discarded parameters, or any error behavior. This is insufficient for a network-touching tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action, and the privacy note is a single extra sentence. It is efficient in size, but the brevity leaves out essential information given the tool's complexity, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and nine parameters, the description is not complete. It does not mention the return format, how to handle errors, the purpose of the non-URL parameters, whether network access is required, or how to disambiguate from many similar siblings. An agent would likely misuse or misselect 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, meeting the baseline. The description adds meaning for the 'url' parameter (clarifying it returns host/scheme/status) but does not explain why the other eight parameters exist or how they relate to the stated purpose. The schema descriptions for those parameters say they are 'discarded,' which creates confusion rather than adding value.

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

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

The description gives a clear verb ('Return') and resource (host, scheme, HTTP status for a URL), so an agent knows what the tool outputs. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, which likely overlap in purpose. The presence of nine parameters, most unrelated to the stated purpose, also muddies the 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. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons. With 28 sibling tools, the agent receives no help in selecting this one over similar URL-checking 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'No identifiers are retained,' which addresses data retention but reveals nothing about side effects, return format, or whether the tool is read-only. The operational behavior remains completely 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 (two sentences) but under-specifies the tool's purpose. It is not 'concisely informative' – it omits critical information, making it more an empty shell than a well-structured description.

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

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

With 9 heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, what inputs are needed, or what output to expect, making it impossible to call correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description 'Show how this request is classified' is extremely vague; it never specifies what 'classified' means, what kind of classification is performed, or what the tool actually does with the 9 input parameters. It fails to differentiate from many sibling tools that perform concrete checks (e.g., validate-json, browser-url-ok, domain-shape).

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

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 30 siblings. It mentions no conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent entirely without routing information.

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 entire burden. It does state a behavioral trait: it splits the host without doing WHOIS/ownership lookups, so agents know it performs no remote data enrichment. However, it doesn't disclose side-effects, permission requirements, how errors are raised (e.g., invalid hostname), or how multiple parameters interact. These remarks are useful but significant gaps remain.

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 zero filler. It is front-loaded and each word contributes to the boundary, though it is so brief that important context about the broader parameter set is omitted. For what it does convey, the conciseness is excellent, but the content is not equally rich.

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 output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers hostname splitting. It doesn't tell the agent what to pass when only e.g. 'url' or 'json' is provided, what the result shape looks like, or how errors are represented. The extra parameters and discard annotations suggest a broader shape-check role, but the description leaves that context entirely missing, making it under-specified for a rational caller.

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 describes all parameters at 100% coverage, including the host parameter ('Public hostname') and direct discard annotations for several other parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying which parameter to pass or how it is used. Under a full-schema baseline, a 3 is the correct credit for not needing to repeat what the schema says.

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 names a specific action and resource: splice a hostname into labels. It also adds a useful boundary (rather than WHOIS/ ownership data), making it clear this is about lexical splitting, not metadata lookups. It doesn't explicitly place itself among sibling shape tools like figma-url-shape or github-repo-shape, but the single-verb message and the sentence 'purpose_home' sufficiently identify what it 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?

It implies when to use the tool (when you need a hostname's labels without resource-ownership data) but never names any sibling alternative or states conditions such as 'use domain-shape for this, uses fetch-status for that.' The negative caveat 'without WHOIS or ownership data' is an implicit exclusion, not an explicit usage rule. The guidance is valid but not fully actionable.

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 transparency burden; it discloses that the tool issues a HEAD request and returns only status, which signals a read-only operation. It does not explain the purpose of the other 8 schema parameters, hint at auth/privacy constraints, or describe any response shape beyond 'status'.

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 clean sentence with zero filler; the HEAD method, public-URL scope, and status-only result are front-loaded. It earns its place, although the terse style means key details are on it.

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 9-parameter schema with no output schema and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how the other parameters are intended to be used (or that they are discarded), and it doesn't close the gap with the sibling tools, so an agent would be unable to correctly filter which of these 8 extra inputs are ever relevant.

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

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

The schema already describes all 9 parameters well, so the default baseline of 3 applies. The description adds a 'HEAD' restriction for URL semantics but does not clarify how the 8 non-URL parameters (city, zone, json, etc.) relate to the tool's advertised purpose, leaving the parameter model disconnected.

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 names the HTTP method (HEAD), the resource (public URL), and the narrow result (status only), so the core purpose is clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools (e.g., browser-url-ok, web-fetch) that also deal with URLs, but its 'status only' qualifier does set an expectation of a lightweight check.

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 one of the 27 sibling tools. The description only says 'HEAD a public URL', leaving the agent without a decision rule for choosing it over browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, or web-fetch, and no mention of when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Path discarded,' which is minimal and does not disclose what happens with invalid URLs, what the tool returns, whether other parameters are ignored, or any error behavior. This is critically 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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits crucial information about behavior, parameters, and usage. A single vague sentence does not earn credit for conciseness when it fails to say anything actionable.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with each parameter, what it returns, or when it should be called. An agent would have no idea how to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The schema says many params are 'discarded after the shape check,' implying a generic shape-validator, but the description only mentions Figma URLs. The description fails to explain the relationship between the stated purpose and the 9 optional parameters, creating 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 specific verb and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL'), but it conflicts with the schema, which includes many unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, json, zone, query). It does not clarify what 'parse' returns or how it differs from sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The purpose is ambiguous and misleading.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 27 siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, conditions for use, or exclusions. An agent has no basis to choose this tool over others.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the transparency burden. The description states 'No disk access,' but that same phrase appears in the schema parameter description for 'path' and does not reveal the overall behavior across all nine accepted parameters, return semantics, or side effects. It adds little beyond the structured 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a key behavioral hint. It is concise and direct, although it is terse given the schema's breadth of nine parameters.

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

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

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should clarify what result the check produces and what role the other eight parameters play. It does not, so the agent is left unsure whether the tool will validate a single named property or how it behaves when multiple fields are supplied.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it only reiterates a path check and its zero-disk-behavior already captured in the parameter description. It also does not clarify the relationship between the nine accepted parameters, but the schema already describes each one adequately.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'check whether a path looks safe.' This is clear and not a tautology. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the name itself (file-path-ok) is distinctive among the many url/shape checker siblings, so an agent can tell what it 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 given about when to use this tool over alternatives, nor when not to use it. The only hint, 'No disk access', gives a mild safety hint but does not direct an agent to use it for path validation vs. URL validation or other 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 full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. The only behavioral clue is 'via Open-Meteo,' implying an external API call, but nothing about input handling, error conditions, network dependencies, or whether values are discarded.

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

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

The single sentence is tightly written, front-loaded, and free of filler. It is economical enough; the main issue is that it is too sparse for the tool given the rich and ambiguous input schema.

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 9-parameter schema, 0 required inputs, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool. The agent cannot identify the appropriate parameter and does not know what return value or error shape to 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it does not help map the word 'place' to the city parameter or any other feasible 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 gives a clear capability: obtain latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo. It states a specific verb-object relationship and is not a tautology. However, it does not clarify which of the nine input parameters represents the 'place' or differentiate itself from sibling weather/shape 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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot determine whether geo-hint should be selected for a city name, a URL, or an arbitrary place string, nor when to prefer it over siblings like weather-hint or the other shape-check 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 supplied, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not state what happens for invalid or non-GitHub URLs, whether the operation is purely local or may make a request, what return shape is produced, or how the many optional input fields are handled.

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

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

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded: 'Parse owner and repo...'. It is appropriately minimal for conciseness, even though this minimalism contributes to completeness gaps elsewhere.

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 exposes 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain which parameter is the GitHub URL, what the parsed result looks like, how invalid input is handled, or the relationship to sibling shape tools. As a result, an agent has enough fragments to guess the purpose but not to confidently invoke the tool with the right inputs.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters. The description does not add further parameter meaning, such as pointing to `url` as the relevant input or noting that the other fields are unnecessary; per the baseline rule it receives 3.

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: parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL. It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling URL/shape tools such as normalize-url or figma-url-shape.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no condition like 'when you need owner/repo from a GitHub URL', and no exclusions. It is a bare statement of purpose, not usage 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It mentions that titles are discarded but does not disclose network access, caching, rate limits, or whether the many accepted parameters are actually 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 short and starts with the main action, but the second sentence ('Titles discarded.') is cryptic and could have been clarified with a phrase like 'returns only the count.' It is concise but not optimally clear.

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 appears simple, but the mismatch between the purpose and the nine unrelated optional parameters creates real ambiguity. The description does not state whether to pass any parameters, what the output format is, or why the unrelated fields are accepted.

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 nine parameters, but the tool description connects none of them to the count behavior. Several descriptions say parameters are 'discarded' or are unrelated concepts (Git ref, weather hint, timezone), leaving an agent unable to determine which, if any, affect the result.

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

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

The description uses a clear verb ('Count') and a specific object ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), and adds that titles are not returned. It does not fully explain the 'Titles discarded' phrase, but the core purpose is easy to infer.

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 text implies the tool is for getting a count of front-page stories, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings like web-fetch or fetch-status. No conditions, alternatives, or context are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but provides none. It does not state what the tool does with its inputs, whether it has side effects, what it returns, or any constraints. The description is purely nominal and offers no 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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential information and does not front-load any actionable guidance. A terse description that fails to inform is not concise in a useful sense.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does, when to invoke it, how parameters relate to the stated purpose, or what the response format is. An agent cannot correctly use this tool based on the provided 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing each parameter's semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Per rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and this score is appropriate because the description does not contradict or enrich 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' essentially restates the tool name without specifying an action. It does not state a verb or resource, and fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. This is a tautology, not a clear purpose.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for clock calls' is too vague to inform an agent about appropriate conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. No sibling tool is referenced.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it does clearly indicate a public read fetch and restricts the result to group counts. However, it does not describe 404/empty-robots.txt behavior, rate limiting, or the fact that many of the schema parameters are explicitly marked as discarded.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler: it gives the action, the target resource, and the output constraint. This is an appropriate size for the simple operation it describes.

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 no annotations, while the input surface is large with nine optional parameters. The description does not say which parameter should carry the robots.txt target, how the group counts are returned, or that the other optional inputs are ignored, so an agent still has key unresolved invocation decisions.

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 without parameter-level insight in the tool description. The description does not map 'robots.txt' to specifically `url` or `host`, and it leaves ambiguity across the nine optional input fields, many of which are noted as discarded only in 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.' This also distinguishes it from sibling tools such as `web-fetch`, `browser-url-ok`, and `fetch-status` by limiting the scope to robots.txt and to aggregate group counts.

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 on when to use this tool instead of a sibling tool like `web-fetch` or `browser-url-ok`. The intended usage is only implied by the action described; there is no when-not-to-use statement and no mention of the alternative 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 behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the key is 'discarded,' giving minimal insight into side effects. It does not describe return values, error behavior, or whether other parameters are validated. The description is nearly silent on behavior beyond the core check.

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 with two sentences that avoid unnecessary words. However, it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. It lacks structure (e.g., no examples or parameter explanations) that would help an agent, but it does not waste space. The brevity is acceptable for a shape-checker, but it misses critical usage context.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no guidance on which parameter to use, what constitutes a valid Jira key, or what the result looks like. The mismatch between the description (Jira key) and schema (unrelated fields like city, feed, zone) further reduces completeness, leaving an agent unable 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 coverage is 100% for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and it fails to link any schema field (e.g., 'ref' or 'url') to the Jira key concept. While the schema descriptions exist, they are generic and don't relate to the tool's purpose, so the description's lack of semantic mapping is not penalized beyond 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 a clear verb and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This distinguishes it as a shape-checker among siblings. However, the input schema lists 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) with no parameter that obviously holds a Jira key, creating ambiguity about how to invoke the tool. The phrase 'Key discarded' suggests the key is not retained, but it does not clarify which input is the key.

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 alternative shape-checkers like domain-shape, github-repo-shape, or figma-url-shape. The description lacks any mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the name and terse purpose statement.

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. It reveals nothing about side effects, input requirements, return values, or restrictions. The phrase 'language tag ms' is purely nominal and gives no indication of what the tool does with the tag or any 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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It reads as a fragment and lacks the substance needed for an agent to understand the tool's purpose or usage. Structure-wise, it front-loads nothing useful.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and high complexity, the description is completely inadequate. An agent has no way to know what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or what the 'language tag ms' relates to. The definition fails to provide even minimal context 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?

All 9 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-related information, but it also does not contradict or omit anything beyond what the schema already explains. The loss of value from the description is minimal because the schema is sufficient.

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 essentially a tautology: 'ISO 639 language tag ms.' simply restates the tool name without stating any action, resource, or function. It is unclear whether this tool validates, returns information, or compares language tags. No verb or defined behavior is provided, making it indistinguishable from a static label.

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, no context, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The description does not help an agent decide when to call this tool versus any of the 27 sibling tools. It offers no usage hints at all.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Body discarded,' which is a minor detail, and omits essential behavior such as redirect handling, timeouts, whether other parameters are actually used, or what 'HTTP status' means in edge cases (e.g., non-library URLs).

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 filler. It front-loads the primary action (HTTP status) and is appropriately brief, though it sacrifices necessary context in favor of 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's complexity (9 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool actually accomplishes with the various parameters, when to use it, or what to expect in response. An agent would be unable to infer correct usage from this minimal text.

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 each parameter has a description, but the tool description does not clarify how these parameters relate to the stated purpose. For example, city and query are described as 'discarded after the call,' which directly contradicts the notion that the tool only checks a URL. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema and even introduces confusion about parameter roles.

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 goal ('HTTP status for a public library docs URL') but fails to connect it to the 9-parameter schema, which includes unrelated fields like city, json, path, and query. The phrase 'public library docs URL' is ambiguous and does not clarify which parameters are expected or how the others are used, making the purpose misleading rather than precise.

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 many siblings (e.g., web-fetch, fetch-status, browser-url-ok). The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria to select it correctly.

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 discloses that values are discarded, implying a read-only, side-effect-free operation. However, it does not mention output format, error behavior, or whether any network/disk access occurs, and the schema descriptions hint at various checks that slightly conflict with the simple counting 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a key behavioral qualifier. No filler or redundant 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?

For a simple counter, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks an explicit statement of the return value and does not reconcile the parameter descriptions with the counting behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, more context would help an agent 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is individually described. The description adds the global semantic that values are ignored, which is useful, but it does not clarify how the parameters map to the 'JSON object' being counted. The schema descriptions (e.g., 'shape check', 'validate') are potentially misleading relative to 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 states a clear action ('Count keys in a JSON object') and a behavioral qualifier ('Values discarded'). It is not a tautology and is distinct from sibling count/length tools by targeting JSON object keys. However, it does not explicitly connect to the 9 string parameters, leaving some ambiguity about how the JSON object is supplied.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate-json or search-query-len. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage from the name and description 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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the key transformation (query and fragment are dropped), which is useful, but it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what happens with invalid input, or whether only the 'url' parameter drives the output.

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: one sentence for output and one for the dropped components, with no filler. It is well front-loaded 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?

Given the 9-parameter schema, zero required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-sentence description is insufficient. The agent cannot tell why the other parameters exist or whether url is effectively required, and there is no explanation of invalid input behavior.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already carry semantic weight; the description adds only the transformation rule (query/fragment dropped). That justifies the baseline score of 3, not higher.

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 names a specific verb and resource (normalize URL, return origin/host/path, drop query/fragment), so the tool's basic purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling URL tools like url-check or playwright-url-ok, and it provides no hint that the schema contains eight other irrelevant-looking parameters.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling URL tools (browser-url-ok, fetch-status, web-fetch, etc.). No when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer 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 present, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does provide one substantial trait — that this is a headless 'no-browser' check — which reshapes what the agent expects from a playwright-named tool, and the schema corroborates that several inputs are 'discarded after' the check, signaling a read-only probe. But the description omits any behavioral details like side effects, network I/O visibility, error behavior, or how nine unrelated input parameters relate to 'checking a URL.' This is a partially honest description that is insufficient to carry the definition alone.

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 exactly two sentences: the leading claim then the crucial caveat. Every word carries weight — 'No browser is launched' is the single most important disambiguation for an agent about to invoke a playwright-named tool. No filler, no repetition, and the informative negative is placed immediately.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only addresses one URL dimension and says nothing about the eight other parameters or the return contract. For a definition that is supposed to tell an agent how to gather context, this is a large hole: the nine unrelated parameters (city, zone, feed, json, etc.) are completely unexplained, and the description is silent on what value the tool returns, making the full definition distinctly 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?

Jen, the schema has 100% description coverage and gives each parameter a factual note, so the baseline is 3. The description interface adds no param-level detail beyond the wide 'URL' claim, and it does not compensate for the invisible mapping of city, feed, json, zone, etc., to a 'URL open check.' Baseline 3 is fair since the schema does the job, but the description does not elevate a potentially confusing 9-parameter surface.

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 specific action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a strong qualifying trait: 'No browser is launched.' This meaningfully separates it from browser-launching siblings like browser-url-ok or web-fetch, though it does not name them. The only shortfall is that the URL-only framing does not preview the tool's actual 9-parameter surface, so the stated purpose is a little narrower than what the schema supports.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many URL/shape siblings (browser-url-ok, normalize-url, domain-shape, fetch-status). The negative note 'No browser is launched' is an implicit hint, but the essay is never articulated: no alternatives are named, no use case is bounded, and no when-not-to-use conditions are stated. An agent must infer selection logic from the tool name and sibling list.

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

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

The description concedes 'Query discarded', which discloses that no side effects persist and the input is not retained. This is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, without any annotations the description is the only source; it does not mention return format (e.g., integer), encoding, or any operational constraints (e.g., max length), which are not revealed elsewhere.

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 exactly two sentences and delivers its core purpose and the key behavioral trait (discarding the query) with zero fluff. Each sentence does something: it defines the operation and then clarifies the side effect. The length is proportionate to the tool's doria; 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 tool has 9 parameters, all optional, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-line description is not enough to fully instruct an agent. The description does not clarify whether all parameters are legal inputs or if only 'query' is used, and it does not give the return format. There is no guidance on how to interpret non-query parameters. So while the primary purpose is clear, the tool context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3 as the schema already documents each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters; it only notes that the query is discarded. For the 'query' parameter, the schema description is equally explicit about the length check. Thus the description provides no extra semantic layer.

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 ('Count characters') and a specific resource ('in a search query'), which aligns with the tool name. It does not explicitly name sibling comparisons, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can separate it from the other shape/count tools. The small gap is that the description ignores the other eight parameters declared in the schema, creating mild ambiguity about the tool's 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or call context. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when a search query length is needed. No sibling routing or conditional advice is given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses no side effects, whether network access occurs, or how inputs are processed. Although the schema hints that many inputs are 'discarded,' the description itself offers no behavioral context, making it opaque.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks necessary context about parameters, return values, or examples. This is not efficient conciseness; it is insufficient specification.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's behavior, what it returns, or how to interpret the parameters. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly with the given information.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so individual parameters are documented. However, the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters combine or why they are relevant to HTTP status codes. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema is complete, but the description fails to clarify the tool's usage.

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

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

The description states it is a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which clearly identifies the resource and general purpose. However, it does not explain how the nine input parameters relate to the catalog, nor does it differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok. The purpose is present but incomplete.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, typical use cases, or exclusions. Siblings are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is a noteworthy behavior, but it never explains the side effects of the parameter checks (e.g., what triggers validation, whether errors are raised, or what the template looks like). No information is given about reversibility, side effects, or the nature of the output.

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, using only two short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. There is no verbosity or redundant phrasing. However, the brevity edges toward under-specification, but since conciseness is about efficient wording, it earns a 4.

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 nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is grossly inadequate. It doesn't explain what the 'three-step thinking template' contains, how parameters affect it, or what the expected output format is. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the description alone.

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

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

All nine parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds nothing beyond the schema's own claims that parameters are 'discarded after the shape check.' The descriptions are repetitive and don't clarify how each parameter influences the template, so the added value 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 clear action ('Return a three-step thinking template') but it fails to explain how the nine input parameters relate to that output, and it doesn't differentiate the tool from siblings like geo-hint or calc-eval. The purpose is only partially clear because the input handling is ambiguous—whether the template depends on the input or is static.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints that input may be irrelevant, but it doesn't state a use case, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is preferred. An agent would have to guess based on the name alone.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates the main observable behavior—'current time in a named IANA timezone'—which implies a pure read, but it does not disclose how invalid zones are handled or that several schema parameters appear to be no-ops.

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 short sentence with no filler. The key functionality is front-loaded and clear. It is appropriately concise for a simple 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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is not sufficient. It leaves ambiguity about whether 'zone' is effectively required and whether other parameters are ever relevant. It also fails to mention what the returned time representation looks like.

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 does not add parameter-level detail, but it does identify the 'zone' parameter as the focus. It does not compensate for the extraneous parameters or explain why 'ref', 'url', 'city', etc. are present.

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 specific and action-oriented: it returns the current time for a named IANA timezone. It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like iana-zones (which lists zones) and utc-time (which handles UTC).

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 explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. The intended context is implied by the wording, but the description never states exclusions or alternative tool choices.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output (UTC timestamp) but does not disclose that it accepts 9 optional parameters that are used for 'shape checks' and then discarded, as implied by the schema. The tool likely performs validation on the parameters, but the description does not mention this side effect or the fact that parameters are ignored in terms of output. This is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, given the tool's complex schema with 9 parameters, the brevity borders on under-specification, but conciseness itself is well executed.

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

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

The description is incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations. It does not explain why the parameters are present, whether they are required, or how they affect the call (even though they are all optional and discarded). An agent would be uncertain whether to supply any of these parameters or what the tool does with them. There is no output schema, and the description's one line does not address the operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides detailed meaning for each parameter (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds no parameter-related information beyond stating the output. According to the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate even without additional description content.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: returning the current UTC timestamp. It is a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', which could also provide time-related data, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about scenarios where this tool is preferred, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. An agent cannot determine whether to use 'utc-time' or 'timezone' based on this description 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 carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a meaningful safety trait: the input is discarded after validation, implying no persistence. It does not describe error/return behavior, but for a simple validator the discard statement adds real value beyond the 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 brief, front-loaded, and free of filler. It loses a point only because the 'body' terminology does not align neatly with the schema's parameter names.

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

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

For a simple validator, the description plus 100% schema coverage is close to sufficient, but the absence of an output schema or explicit return/error explanation leaves an agent to guess how validation results are expressed. The 'body' phrasing also adds ambiguity that the schema alone has to resolve.

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 already has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to repeat each field. It adds only the generic 'body' notion but does not state which schema property should receive the JSON, which is a small semantic gap.

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 action is clear: check whether a body is valid JSON, and the name reinforces it. It is not a 5 because the description says 'body' while the input schema exposes `json` as the actual JSON-text parameter, so the mapping is not explicit.

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 like other shape/URL validators, nor are any preconditions, expected input flows, or valid/invalid result behaviors described. The only implicit cue is the tool name itself.

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. It only mentions retrieving a temperature via Open-Meteo and says nothing about how the other eight parameters are handled (e.g., they are discarded after checks, per their schema descriptions). It does not explain that the tool performs validations or shape checks, nor does it mention any rate limits, response format, or side effects. The agent is left without essential behavioral context.

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), which might be considered concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. It lacks structure such as separating the primary use case from the general hint mechanism. The brevity leads to major gaps rather than clear communication, so it does not earn credit for conciseness.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity—9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations—the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to mention the tool's role as a hint provider that validates or returns a simple value based on input type. An agent would not understand how to handle non-city parameters or what the return value looks like for those cases. The description covers only a fraction of the tool's behavior.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters, but the description adds no value by only referencing 'city' while leaving seven parameters unexplained. It fails to clarify that many parameters are ignored or discarded based on the type of hint requested, and it does not help the agent decide which parameter to supply for a weather query. The description's minimal mention of city does not compensate for the silent handling of the rest.

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 temperature for a city via Open-Meteo,' which is specific for a weather lookup, but the input schema includes eight other optional parameters (ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) that are not mentioned at all. This creates significant ambiguity about the tool's actual scope; the tool appears to be a generic hint/validation tool that happens to return temperature for cities, making the stated purpose only partially accurate and misleading.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like geo-hint or timezone clearly overlap in purpose, yet the description offers no differentiation or conditions for selection. The lack of any usage context forces the agent to infer applicability, which is inadequate.

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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the body is discarded and implies public URLs need no auth, but it does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or side effects, and it contradicts the schema by ignoring the extra 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 only two short sentences, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and a complex web of siblings. It is not concise in a helpful way; it omits essential context.

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

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

There is no output schema and no explanation of return values, no mention of which parameters are actually used, and no guidance on how the tool relates to siblings. An agent cannot confidently call this tool with the right parameters or 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?

Schema descriptions cover all 9 parameters, so that baseline is met, but the tool description adds no clarification about why parameters like 'city', 'zone', or 'query' exist when the stated purpose is fetching URLs. The description fails to reconcile the mismatch between its core function and the full parameter set.

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 and resource ('HTTP status and content type for a public URL'), but it does not differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, and it omits any mention of the tool's many unrelated parameters (city, zone, query), making its actual scope 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 given on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor any exclusion criteria. An agent has no way to know if this is the right tool for a given task among 28 similar 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 are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. The phrase 'Title is discarded after the call' hints at a read-only, stateless behavior, but it does not state whether this makes a network request, how existence is determined, what response is returned, or if any input is actually used. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 and front-loaded with the main action, which is concise. However, it lacks the operational mapping to the 9-parameter schema, and the second sentence ('Title discarded after the call') is not useful to an agent without context about where the title is supplied.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description gives no guidance on which parameter provides the title, no mention of return value, and no note about side effects or platform interactions. For this level of complexity, the description is completely insufficient and likely disorients an agent, making successful invocation nearly impossible.

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-level semantics beyond the schema's own field usage hints, and it never explains how to provide the 'title' it mentions. It performs as expected only because the schema already documents each individual parameter adequately.

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 check ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists'), which is more informative than a tautology and suggests a distinct purpose from sibling tools. However, the input schema exposes nine parameters with no 'title' parameter, so an agent cannot map the stated purpose onto any available input. This makes the purpose only partially clear.

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 like browser-url-ok, figma-url-shape, or file-path-ok. The description does not mention usage conditions, recommendations, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess from the ambiguous name and schema.

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