Language ps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Task text discarded' and 'Returns connection methods,' but it does not clarify how the parameters affect the search, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. The phrase about discarding may hint at input handling, but the behavior remains vague.

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 sentences with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the discard note is a useful behavioral hint. Every word earns its place.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how the many parameters (city, url, query, etc.) map to gateway discovery or what the 'connection methods' look like. An agent would struggle to decide what inputs to supply and what 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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, except the general statement about discarding task text, which is not parameter-specific. 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 states a clear verb ('find') and resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway'), with examples of tasks (weather, search, scrape, voice). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on gateway discovery rather than validation or computation, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 usage for gateway-finding tasks but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The examples of tasks give some context, but there's no exclusion of other tools or conditions that would route to a different sibling.

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?

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavior. It only says 'No browser is launched' and does not state whether the tool performs a network request, what it does on failure, whether it has side effects, or how errors surface. The remaining behavior must be inferred.

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 every sentence is relevant, but it is concise without being complete. The tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotation coverage, so the terse phrasing reads as under-specification rather than skilled 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?

For a tool with nine parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description omits what the caller receives, what the URL check actually measures, and how the extra parameters relate to the core task. An agent cannot infer the callable contract or expected usage from this description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters and their disposal behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, but the baseline for a fully covered schema is adequate. It would only need description-level compensation if the schema were weak.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') on a clear resource, and adds a useful distinguishing negative: 'No browser is launched.' This helps separate it from playwright-url-ok. However, 'can be opened' is still vague about the mechanism (HTTP fetch, DNS, reachability), so it is clear at a high level but not fully bounded.

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 siblings such as fetch-status, normalize-url, web-fetch, or playwright-url-ok. 'No browser is launched' implies it is not for browser-like behavior but it never names an alternative or states the condition that should route an agent to 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Expression discarded' is the only behavioral statement, but it refers to something not present in the schema; the behavior for the nine actual parameters is entirely opaque.

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

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

The text is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Every word is unhelpfully vague, and the two sentences do not substantially inform an agent about the tool's behavior.

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

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

Given nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what each parameter does, what the return value is, or how the 'arithmetic' relates to any param.

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 baseline is 3, but the description introduces an 'expression' concept that has no corresponding parameter and fails to map any parameter to the stated purpose. The mismatch actively hurts understanding rather than adding meaning.

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

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

The description says 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic' which names a verb and resource, but the input schema contains no expression parameter and the phrase 'a+b style' is too vague to indicate what the tool actually does. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'validate-json' or '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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving an agent unable to route to this tool 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that page content is not stored, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects for the other parameters (e.g., whether they trigger network calls), authentication needs, or error behaviors. The single disclosure is too minimal.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. No filler words. It earns a high conciseness score, though the under-specification of the multi-parameter scope slightly reduces structure effectiveness.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It only addresses the URL case and leaves the purpose and behavior of the other eight parameters unexplained. An agent cannot know how to properly invoke the tool for non-URL inputs, making the description inadequate for the tool's actual 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 each parameter has a one-line explanation. However, the tool description itself does not add meaningful context beyond the schema; it only explains the URL-related output while ignoring the other eight parameters. The schema descriptions are quirky (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') but do convey some intent, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, and the presence of nine parameters with unrelated names (city, feed, json, etc.) makes the overall purpose ambiguous. It isn't a tautology, but it's not fully clear about the full scope.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it returns, not the context or conditions for selection. Since many siblings could perform similar URL checks, the omission is significant.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'No identifiers are retained' is a genuinely useful privacy guarantee and hints at discard semantics, but the description omits other important behaviors: whether the request is actually validated, what checks are performed per parameter, whether any network/disk access occurs, and what the classification output looks like or how it is structured. The privacy note is meaningful but too narrow for the scope of this 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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. The privacy guarantee is front-loaded in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, though the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling set, this description is not remotely complete. It omits what classification means, how the many parameters relate, whether the tool validates, and what an agent should expect in the result. The privacy note is the only substantive contextual information, which is inadequate for a tool this polymorphic.

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 of the 9 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the cross-cutting 'No identifiers are retained' claim, which is reflected in some parameter descriptions (discarded, discarded after) but not uniformly. This adds a small amount of behavioral context beyond the schema, keeping it at 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 'Show how this request is classified' identifies the tool as some kind of classifier/dispatcher but never states what classification is being performed, what categories are returned, or what kind of input it handles. With 9 heterogeneous parameters (url, city, json, path, zone, query, etc.) and 29 sibling tools, the purpose is too ambiguous to distinguish from related checker 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 provided about when to call this tool versus alternatives like fetch-status, domain-shape, or validate-json. The only usage-related statement is about identifier retention, which is a privacy property, not a usage rule. An agent cannot determine which parameter(s) to supply or what scenario warrants invoking this tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior but only mentions 'without WHOIS or ownership data'—a single, narrow detail. It does not explain what the tool actually does with the other parameters, what it returns, or any side effects. The description's claim to split hostnames contradicts the broad set of inputs in the schema, leaving agent behavior unclear.

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 unnecessary words. However, it is under-specified relative to the tool's complexity (9 parameters) and does not front-load the broad capability. Conciseness is acceptable, but structure fails to cover the tool's actual functionality.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It addresses only one parameter (host) and ignores the rest, providing no rationale for the other inputs or the tool's overall purpose. An agent cannot determine correct usage for any input other than host.

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

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

The schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for any parameter—it only repeats the concept of hostname for 'host' and provides no explanation of how the other parameters relate to the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline but adds no 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Split a hostname into labels') but the schema accepts 9 different input types (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query), none of which are mentioned beyond host. This creates confusion about the tool's actual scope—it appears to be a generic shape-checker rather than a hostname splitter, making the purpose 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or file-path-ok. The description does not provide any context about the tool's role in a workflow or scenarios where it should be preferred.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the HEAD method, the public-URL constraint, and the status-only return, which is useful, but it omits details such as redirect handling, timeouts, error behavior, or the fact that many schema fields 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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler and an explicit outcome, so it is efficient. It loses points because it is concise more than complete: it omits parameter guidance and alternative tool 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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is not enough. An agent cannot tell whether it needs url, host, path, or another field, and it cannot predict the return format beyond 'status'.

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 structured parameter descriptions already provide a baseline. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not reconcile the singular phrase 'a public URL' with the 9 optional parameters, leaving ambiguity about which parameter actually contains the URL.

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 (HEAD a public URL) and a clear output (status only), which makes the basic purpose obvious. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like web-fetch or browser-url-ok, and it does not address the fact that the schema accepts 9 unrelated optional 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not say to prefer this tool for reachability/status checks, nor does it name alternatives for body content, rendering, or URL normalization, so an agent must infer selection logic.

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 full burden of behavior disclosure. It does disclose one concrete trait — the path is discarded — but it never says whether parsing involves network access, what happens with a non-Figma URL, or that the operation is side-effect-free. The verb 'parse' only weakly implies read-only 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?

It is a visibly lean 8-word definition with the main verb and resource front-loaded in the first sentence. The second clause, 'Path discarded.', is a grammatically awkward fragment that the reader must mentally expand, which costs it a point on structure.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, none required, no output schema, and no annotations, this is insufficient. The agent cannot determine which parameter carries the Figma URL (url versus host or path), what the tool returns after discarding the path, or how malformed inputs are handled. The sibling/gensen indirect helps, but the description itself must carry more weight.

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: each of the nine parameters already carries its own meaning (e.g., 'url': HTTPS URL to normalize or cite). The description adds only the hint that the Figma URL is a shape input, but does not map which of the nine parameters it actually consumes, nor which parameters are 'discarded'.

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 — parse a Figma file URL — which distinguishes it among the sibling shape tools (github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape, wiki-title-ok). It loses a point because the second sentence, 'Path discarded.', is an ambiguous fragment that leaves whether the tool validates URL shape or returns a parsed component.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool over normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or the other *-shape siblings, and states no exclusions or prerequisites. The only cue is the tool name itself, which is at best an implied usage.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'No disk access' is a helpful and meaningful behavioral disclosure: it warns that this is not a real filesystem check. Still, the description does not state what a safe vs. unsafe path means, whether it returns a boolean or throws, or whether there are other side effects, so it is only minimally transparent.

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 contain only useful information: the purpose and the side-effect boundary. The statement is front-loaded and contains no filler, examples, or repetitive 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?

The description is not complete enough given the large optional-parameter schema and the absence of an output schema. An agent cannot know what the tool returns on success/failure, what 'looks safe' means, or which of the nine optional parameters are relevant to the check.

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 parameters are already individually documented and the baseline is 3. The prose adds no further parameter semantics; it only indicates that 'path' is the relevant input. The large set of unrelated-looking optional parameters is not addressed in the description.

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

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

The description names the resource ('a path') and states exactly what the tool does: check whether the path 'looks safe', plus the important qualifier 'No disk access.' It is clear and aligns with the tool name, and it separates a path check from URL-style siblings. It does not, however, precisely define what counts as 'safe,' so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling URL/shape tools, and no mention of when not to use it. The only implication is that any path check should use this tool, which is left to the reader rather than stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It mentions Open-Meteo, which implies a network service, but it reveals nothing about side effects, rate limits, what gets discarded, whether inputs are strictly ephemeral, or what assumptions exist about the selected input. The schema parameter notes ('discarded after the call', 'no disk access') are not part of the tool description and are not enough to compensate.

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 and is front-loaded, giving the reader the essential output and source first. However, for a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, this brevity is under-specification rather than well-calculated concision. It could still be concise and useful with one or two more sentences linking parameters to purpose.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must do more heavy lifting. It fails to state which field is the place, how the other fields are relevant, and what expected behavior is. An agent seeing this description cannot safely select or call the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning: it never connects 'place' to the 'city', 'query', or any other field. It does not confuse the parameters, but it also does not elevate the agent's understanding beyond what the schema already states.

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 that the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, so it names the output and the data source. However, it never says which of the 9 optional input parameters contains the 'place', and it provides no differentiation from siblings like weather-hint or timezone. It is more than a tautology, but too vague for an agent to know how to invoke it.

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

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

The description gives no guidance about when to use geo-hint versus the many sibling tools, nor does it explain which parameter is relevant. It only implies 'use this when you need coordinates', but with 9 optional inputs and no exclusions or alternative names, the agent gets no directional help.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the parser makes network requests, what happens for invalid GitHub URLs, what format the result takes, or whether all other input properties are ignored. The single phrased verb 'parse' hints at read-only behavior but is insufficient for guaranteed invocation.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for the core purpose, though the lack of supporting structure around usage makes it less helpful than a fully-developed definition.

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 nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the one-sentence description is not sufficient to invoke it correctly. An agent cannot determine which parameter is required, which others are discarded, or what the success/failure response will look like in ambiguous 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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaning by indicating that a GitHub URL is the relevant input and that owner/repo are the target outputs, but it does not explicitly name the `url` parameter or explain why eight other optional parameters exist 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 ('parse'), resource (GitHub URL), and output (owner and repo), which distinguishes it from sibling shape-checkers like jira-key-shape or figma-url-shape. Even though the title alone hints at GitHub, the description makes the exact function unambiguous.

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

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

The description implies the tool is for GitHub URLs but gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. Given the large sibling list of related shape/validation tools, an agent receives no help choosing between this and normalize-url or browser-url-ok.

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 burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait: titles are discarded. However, it does not say how the tool obtains the data, whether it makes network calls, what failure modes exist, or what a typical successful result is.

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

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

The description is very brief: an active first sentence states the purpose and a second sentence lists the key behavioral exclusion. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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

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

Given no output schema and 9 optional parameters, the definition is too thin. It does not define what the count returns, how the input is selected, or why most parameters are even accepted. The agent is left to guess at the call contract.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description contributes no linkage between the parameters and the tool's operation. The 9 params appear unrelated to counting Hacker News stories; the agent cannot infer whether to pass 'url', 'feed', or nothing, and several parameter descriptions themselves use the word 'discarded' with no guidance.

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

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

The description names the action clearly with a specific verb and resource: "Count current Hacker News front-page stories." Adding "Titles discarded" further disambiguates scope, which is enough to pick this out from the sibling utilities.

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 siblings or how to trigger the count. With 9 optional parameters and none required, the agent gets no hint about which inputs are actually needed, making usage guidance effectively absent.

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 burden of disclosing behavior. It only says the names are "common," which implies a limited subset, but it never states whether the tool performs a read, a validation, a network call, or any other operation. This is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with no filler words. However, this brevity reads as under-specification rather than efficient completeness, since it lacks a verb, an expected result, and any indication of which parameters matter.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is not enough context. An agent would have to guess whether only the zone parameter matters or whether the other 8 unrelated parameters are part of the intended 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 baseline is 3 even without parameter detail in the tool description. However, the description does not help an agent understand how the 9 optional parameters relate to the intended clock-call scenario, so it adds no extra meaning on top of 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 is nearly a restatement of the tool name: "iana-zones" becomes "IANA timezone names." It adds the phrase "for clock calls," but gives no verb, so the agent cannot tell whether this tool returns, validates, resolves, or suggests those names. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone or utc-time.

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

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

"For clock calls" provides only a weak hint about when this tool might be relevant. There is no direction about when to choose this over timezone/utc-time, no exclusions, and no explanation of how the tool should be invoked with any of its 9 parameters.

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?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full disclosure responsibility. It mentions only that it fetches and returns group counts, but does not state whether this is a read‑only operation, what happens on network errors or malformed robots.txt, or what 'group counts' exactly means. It reveals a net effect but omits performance and exceptional/distributed behavior, giving only minimal transparency.

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

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

The description is a single economy‑conscious sentence, directly front-loading the action and output constraint without redundancy. Every word is useful, and it is free of verbose or tangential detail.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no annotation overload, and no output schema; the description must fill in the gaps. It does not identify the parameter that carries the target URL, describe the shape of the result, or comment on required permissions, error cases, or input constraints. It is grossly incomplete for a tool with this parameter count and low structured metadata.

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%, which gives a baseline of 3, but the description adds no mapping between the description's purpose and the 9 parameters. The parameter descriptions themselves are unrelated ('weather hint', 'search text', etc.) and do not indicate which one should contain the robots.txt URL. The description fails to compensate for the absence of such guidance, leaving the agent unable to determine how to invoke the tool.

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

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

The description specifies a concrete action ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('public robots.txt'), and limits the output to 'group counts only,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'web-fetch' or 'fetch-status' that are general-purpose. However, 'group counts' is not fully defined and the description does not explicitly differentiate it from other robots-related outputs, so it is clear but not at the top of the scale.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, and no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or global exclusions. The description 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only' simply states the function without how/when the tool is to be chosen among the many siblings.

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 does provide at least one behavioral signal: 'Key discarded' plus repeated 'discarded after the check' text indicates non-persistence. It does not disclose output behavior, failure modes, or whether any network/external access occurs, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is concise and adds the non-retention detail without filler.

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?

Although the parameters have individual descriptions, the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a lot of optional inputs, so the description must explain how to identify the Jira key and what the tool returns. It does neither, leaving an agent unable to reliably 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%, which sets the baseline at 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and more importantly, it does not map 'Jira key' to any of the nine optional properties, leaving ambiguity about what should be passed.

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 a Jira issue key shape.' This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like github-repo-shape and wiki-title-ok. It is slightly less clear operationally because no parameter is explicitly identified as the Jira 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the other shape/validation siblings, nor about what input source or format is expected. The agent must infer use 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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description discloses zero behavior beyond the static phrase 'ps'; it does not say if inputs are rejected, what is returned, or what side effects occur.

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

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

The text is short but under-specified to the point of uselessness. It does not earn its place because it provides no actionable information beyond a paraphrase of the tool name.

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

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

This tool has 9 free parameters, no output, and no annotation heuristic. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to know how to supply any parameter or interpret a result. Nothing about the structure is completed.

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 parameter descriptions already explain each field. However, the description itself contributes no value to parameter understanding, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description 'ps' ISO 639 only restates the tool name as a language tag without naming any action or behavior. With 9 parameters and no verb, an agent cannot tell whether this tool returns a constant value, validates an input, or performs a different operation.

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

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

There is no indication of when to invoke this tool or how to choose among the 9 parameters. No sibling tools are referenced, no conditions are given, and no exclusion context exists anywhere in the description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose 'Body discarded,' which tells agents the tool returns only status and no body. But it omits other relevant behavior such as whether it performs a network fetch, handling for the diverse params, or any side effects.

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

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

The description is only two sentences and wastes no words; 'HTTP status' and 'Body discarded' are front-loaded. It is appropriately short, but the brevity comes at the cost of failing to resolve the mismatch with the 9-parameter schema, so it is not a 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a single-sentence description is incomplete. It does state the broad return type (HTTP status), but it never explains how the parameters relate to the operation, what constitutes a valid call, or what distinguishes this from sibling URL tools.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has its own note (e.g., 'discarded after the check'). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that baseline, and its 'library docs URL' focus doesn't explain the unrelated parameters like city, zone, or feed. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('public library docs URL') and result ('HTTP status'), so agents can guess the core purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from URL-status siblings like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch, and the broad 9-parameter schema (city, json, zone, etc.) doesn't align with the narrow description.

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, and no exclusions or calling context. The phrase 'public library docs URL' implies a niche, but it doesn't state when an agent should pick this over other 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Values discarded' is useful because it tells the agent values will not be used or persisted, but it does not disclose whether only top-level keys are counted, whether the operation is read-only with no side effects, or what return value the agent should expect.

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

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

The description is extremely concise and front-loops the core action; both sentences earn their place. The tradeoff is that the brevity approaches under-specification, though for this dimension the text itself contains no waste.

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 annotations, and no output schema, the agent has only this one-line description to infer how to invoke it. It fails to explain the mapping between the parameter object and the JSON object being counted, what counts as a key, and what the tool returns, leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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 because each parameter already has an individual description. The tool description only adds a generic 'values discarded' notion, which is already reflected across the parameter descriptions, and it does not explain how the 9 parameters relate to the counted JSON object.

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 clear verb and resource: count keys in a JSON object, values ignored. However, it never identifies which object is being counted: the tool takes 9 optional string parameters and has no explicit JSON-object property, so the agent must guess whether to count keys in the input arguments or in JSON text inside the 'json' parameter.

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

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

No usage guidance is given: no scenarios, no preconditions, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools such as validate-json or the other shape/count tools. The only clue is the tautology that this counts keys, which does not help the agent decide when to choose it over alternatives.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose one behavior beyond the schema: URL query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not clarify normalization rules, error behavior on invalid URLs, or how the other eight parameters are treated, leaving significant gaps.

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

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

Two lean sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a key behavior. Every word contributes; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite the simple purpose, the tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema. The description does not state that url is the effective input, what happens with invalid URLs, whether non-url parameters are ignored, or the exact shape of the returned origin/host/path. This leaves an agent uncertain about correct scope and side effects.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning for the url parameter by defining its output and the dropped components. It does nothing for the other eight parameters, leaving their relevance ambiguous for a tool named normalize-url.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.' This makes the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or web-fetch, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling URL-related tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely definitional and leaves the agent to infer selection context.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does provide one useful disclosure, that no browser is launched, but it does not state whether a network request is made, whether the URL is merely parsed or actually fetched, what side effects occur, or how the discarded parameters behave at the tool level. The schema's 'discarded' notes help but are structured fields, not behavior description, and no auth or rate-limit context is given.

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 carry the core purpose and a critical behavioral caveat without filler. Every word earns its place, and the leading sentence front-loads the main action.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, a vague purpose, and no output schema, describing only 'Check whether a URL can be opened' is incomplete. The agent is not told what result to expect, how to configure the relevant parameter, or when this is a better choice than the many URL/checking siblings; the single sentence is not enough to call this tool confidently.

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 all nine parameters are already documented, including the 'discarded' behavior for most of them. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the rubric this is acceptable when the schema covers the full contract; it neither helps nor harms beyond the baseline.

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

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a meaningful constraint ('No browser is launched'), which partially separates it from browser-based siblings like browser-url-ok. However, 'opened' is ambiguous (HTTP reachability vs URL parsing vs tool smoke-test), and the schema accepts nine unrelated optional parameters (city, zone, json, query, etc.) with 'discarded' notes that the description never reconciles with the stated URL-checking 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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be used instead of browser-url-ok, web-fetch, fetch-status, or the other URL/checking siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool, leaving the agent to infer the intended niche 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?

The description does disclose that the query is discarded and thus indicates a stateless operation, which is useful. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description carries more responsibility and does not explain the return format, side effects, or any other behavioral details.

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

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

The entire description is two short, purposeful sentences. It states the core action and a behavioral note about the query being discarded without any filler or repetition.

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

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

With nine parameters, zero required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only the query parameter and its discard behavior. It does not explain what the tool returns, why the other parameters are present, or how duration/result might be surfaced, leaving the description usable.

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?

Parameter satisfaction is high at 100%, so the schema fully documents all properties. The description only adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by tying it to character counting, while it does not clarify whether the other eight parameters are truly irrelevant to this tool.

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

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

Description clearly states it counts characters in a search query and that the query is discarded. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling count tools like memory-key-count or hn-front-count, leaving some ambiguity about which specific input is the query.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor which parameters should be passed for the basic use case. The discard statement implies statelessness, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states nothing about side effects, information retention, validation, or what the catalog does with the supplied parameters. The only behavioral hints are buried in the schema parameter descriptions, not the tool description.

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 lacks filler words, with the core noun phrase front-loaded. It is efficiently sized but at the expense of much needed substance.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a highly ambiguous description, this tool is severely under-described. An agent has no way to know what to pass in, what output to expect, or which sibling tool to choose.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter already has an individual description, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds no meaning about how the nine parameters relate to the tool's purpose.

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

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

The description 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' identifies only the resource and is nearly a restatement of the tool name. It lacks a specific verb or behavior, and does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'fetch-status' or 'browser-url-ok'.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With several similar sibling tools and nine optional parameters covering URLs, JSON, hosts, queries, and more, the description provides no 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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Prompt discarded,' which hints that inputs are ignored, but it does not explain whether the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, or how the returned template is produced. For a tool with nine parameters, this is insufficient transparency—the agent is left guessing about the actual behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely brief and front-loaded, with no wasted words. 'Return a three-step thinking template' immediately states the core action, and 'Prompt discarded' conveys the input-ignoring behavior. However, it is so short that it barely covers the essentials, but that is still better than a bloated description, so it earns above average on this dimension.

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, the description should explain what the template actually is, why the parameters are allowed, and when to invoke it. It does none of that. The description lacks the context necessary for an agent to confidently use the tool beyond guessing that it is a stub.

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%, and every parameter's schema description already states it is discarded or used only for a shape check. The main description adds 'Prompt discarded,' which is redundant with those schema remarks. Because the schema already documents each parameter's fate, the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond a baseline, so the score stays at 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 action ('Return a three-step thinking template'), which is better than a tautology. However, it never explains what the template actually is or how it relates to the tool's name, leaving the agent to guess whether it's a reasoning framework, a prompt template, or something else. It doesn't differentiate itself from any sibling tool, since there is no mention of alternatives.

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 or avoid this tool. The description only says 'Return a three-step thinking template,' with no indication of scenarios, prerequisites, or a comparison to sibling tools. Nothing in the text helps an agent decide between this and a tool like 'status-catalog' or 'fetch-status'.

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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'current time in a named IANA timezone' and does not reveal that the call is read-only, which of the nine schema parameters are relevant, how invalid zones are handled, or that many parameters 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 one short sentence with no filler or unnecessary detail. The core purpose is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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

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

For a simple time-lookup tool, the description is enough to infer that `zone` should be provided and that the output is the current time. However, given the unusual nine-parameter schema no annotations and no output schema, the description does not sufficiently clarify which parameters matter or what behavior to expect beyond that one sentence.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description's 'named IANA timezone' simply reinforces the `zone` parameter's schema description and does not add meaning to the other eight 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 states the tool provides the current time for a named IANA timezone, which makes it distinct from likely siblings such as `utc-time` and `iana-zones`. However, it does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'named IANA timezone' implies the usage scenario, but the description does not mention sibling tools, required preconditions, or why it should be chosen over alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the output and does not mention side effects, input handling, output format, or constraints such as 'all parameters are discarded or ignored,' which is especially relevant given the surprising 9-parameter 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 short, direct, and front-loaded, using only four words with no filler. It is easy to scan, though the extreme brevity means the schema must carry most of the operational 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?

For a seemingly simple tool, 'Current UTC timestamp' conveys the core output, but with no output schema and no annotations, details such as timestamp format and whether the optional parameters are ignored would improve completeness. It is minimally adequate rather than fully contextual.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine optional string parameters; this meets the baseline for parameter semantics. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but no compensation is required because the schema is already detailed.

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 phrase 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly indicates the tool returns the current time in UTC, so an agent can tell what it does at a glance. It does not use an explicit verb form or compare itself with siblings like timezone, so it falls short of the distinguishing bar for a 5.

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

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

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools such as timezone and iana-zones. It also does not explain how the nine optional parameters affect invocation, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the phrase 'UTC timestamp.'

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

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

The statement 'The body is discarded' usefully signals that the tool is non-destructive and does not retain input. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, yet it omits any mention of return behavior, error handling, or side effects. It gives partial transparency enough to avoid expecting persistent changes but not enough to fully understanding outputs.

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 two short sentences. Each carries value: the first states its purpose, the second adds a non-trivial behavioral note. While the choice of 'body' could be refined, the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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, none required, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not map the 'body' to any specific schema parameter, nor does it mention what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean) or whether the other parameters are simply ignored. An agent would struggle to invoke the tool correctly without groggling through the schema.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already carrying a specific description (e.g., 'json' as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and object ('a body is valid JSON'). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling validation tools, the name 'validate-json' and the description together are informative. However, it uses the word 'body' rather than referring to the 'json' parameter in the schema, which introduces slight ambiguity.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling validators (e.g., domain-ok, file-path-ok), nor any mention of which parameter holds the JSON to validate. The description gives no context for selection, so an agent must infer this from the schema alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the core function. It does not reveal that non-city parameters are discarded, that Open-Meteo is an external API (implying network access), or whether the tool is read-only. While the schema mentions 'discarded after the check' for several parameters, the description fails to summarize this behavior or set expectations for the agent.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence, using just nine words to state the primary purpose. It is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, omitting any mention of the additional parameters or 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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It only addresses the 'city' attribute and leaves the agent unaware of the tool's multi-purpose nature, potential side effects, and how to leverage the other input fields. Sibling tools clearly follow a 'hint' pattern, but this description does not explain the full scope.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters have meaningful descriptions. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema—it simply names 'city' without elaborating on format or constraints. Per the baseline, a 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully documents each parameter.

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

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

The description 'Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo' clearly states the primary function: retrieve a city's current temperature from a specific service. It is specific and verb-oriented, and distinguishes it from siblings like 'geo-hint' or 'timezone'. However, it only covers the 'city' use case while the schema exposes nine parameters, creating ambiguity about the tool's overall scope.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to use each of the nine parameters. There is no mention of exclusions or context for the non-weather parameters. An agent must infer usage solely from the schema, which is insufficient for decision-making among the large sibling set.

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. It does disclose that the body is discarded and only status/content type are retained, which is valuable. It still omits redirect, timeout, or error behavior details, though the public-URL wording implies no authorization 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, followed by a clear limitation. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or assumption.

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 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, two terse lines are insufficient. The description does not reconcile the broad schema (ref, city, feed, json, zone, query...) with a tool whose stated purpose is fetching HTTP status/content for a URL, and it leaves the agent to infer how the parameters interact.

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 adds no extra parameter-linking semantics beyond emphasizing a public URL; it does not explain how the city, zone, json, path, or query parameters relate to the status/body-discard behavior. The 3 baseline is appropriate because the schema already documents the 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 states the core outcome—HTTP status and content type for a public URL—and adds a distinguishing detail (body discarded). It does not name the sibling fetch/URL tools or explain why the schema exposes many non-URL parameters, which keeps it from being a 5.

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

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

It implies when the tool is suitable: public URL status/content-type checks where the body is not needed. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention such alternatives as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url.

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 that the title is 'discarded after the call', giving a minor hint about memory behavior. It does not clarify whether the call involves network access, whether it returns a boolean, status code, or error, or any side effects. Critical behavioral details are absent.

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 (one sentence), which is efficient, but it omits essential details about how to invoke the tool. Being concise is not valuable when it sacrifices needed instructions. The front-loading is minimal; it states the action but not the input mechanism.

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, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to pass the Wikipedia title, what the expected output is, or any constraints. An agent cannot effectively use this tool without additional 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 description adds no meaning to any parameter. Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions themselves (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'City name for a public weather hint') are entirely unrelated to a Wikipedia title. The description does not specify which parameter represents the title, and none of the schema descriptions mention 'title'. An agent cannot know how to construct a valid call.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' This clearly communicates the core function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser-url-ok' or 'github-repo-shape', and it fails to connect the stated purpose to any of the nine input parameters, leaving how to supply the title 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 alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or conditions for selection among the sibling tools. An agent has no information to route correctly.

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