Language pt

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description explicitly notes that 'Page content is not stored,' which is a key behavioral guarantee about privacy and side effects. This provides transparency beyond the schema definitions.

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

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

The description is concise, using two short sentences with no superfluous information. It immediately states the core function and a key behavioral note, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

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

The description is complete for the core citation function, including what is returned and a safety note. However, it does not address the presence of json and zone parameters, nor specify output format or error behavior, leaving some operational gaps for an agent.

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 minimal meaning to the parameters. It references only 'URL' implicitly, while the input schema includes host, json, and zone, which are not explained or connected to the stated purpose. The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds little beyond that.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It is specific about the output and distinguishes itself from siblings like normalize-url or status-catalog by its combination of outputs.

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 usage when host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL are needed, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as normalize-url or status-catalog. No guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives is provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that identifiers are not retained; it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it makes network calls, or whether any rate limits or side effects exist. 'Show' weakly implies non-mutating behavior but is not explicit.

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 does not waste words, but the first sentence is vague and the second is the only concrete piece of information. It is concise but under-specified, lacking essential details about the tool's operation.

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

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

There is no output schema, no annotations, and four optional parameters, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters are used together, or what classification categories exist. An agent has insufficient context to invoke this tool correctly.

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

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

The schema covers all four parameters with individual descriptions, so the schema_description_coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain how url, host, json, and zone relate to the classification, keeping this at the baseline.

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

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

The description says 'Show how this request is classified' but never defines what classification means, what resource is being examined, or what kind of result is produced. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings such as validate-json or normalize-url.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to choose compatibility over the many sibling tools. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, so an agent cannot determine the appropriate context for 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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, network calls, or data handling. The phrase 'without WHOIS or data' is the only hint, but it is vague and does not explain whether the tool is read-only or has other behavioral implications.

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

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

The description is extremely brief, which is good for conciseness, but it is poorly structured and includes an unclear qualifier ('without WHOIS or data'). It omits essential information about parameters and output, making the brevity a drawback rather than an asset.

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

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

The description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the role of each parameter, what the tool returns, or how it differs from related tools. The agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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

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

The parameter descriptions are generic and mismatched to the tool's purpose. 'url' mentions normalization/citation, 'json' mentions validation and discarding, and 'timezone' is entirely unrelated. Only 'host' ('Public hostname') aligns with the stated purpose, but its description is minimal and does not explain how the parameters relate to splitting a hostname.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and object ('Split a hostname into labels'), but the phrase 'without WHOIS or data' is ambiguous and the description does not clarify what 'labels' means or what the output format is. The tool name suggests a specific function, but the description alone gives only a partial understanding.

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 its siblings, such as normalize-url or validate-json. The description does not mention any conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any side effects, data sources, or whether the tool is read-only. The agent has no way to know if this tool modifies state, depends on external services, or what happens if inputs are invalid.

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

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

The description is short, but brevity without clarity is not effective. It lacks a clear action and context, forcing the agent to infer meaning. While there is no redundant text, the under-specification makes it hard to use.

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 and parameters are insufficient to understand the tool's complete behavior. Even considering sibling tools (e.g., timezone, utc-time), the purpose of iana-zones remains vague. The tool appears to involve timezone names, but the relationship between the URL/host/json parameters and this purpose is unexplained, leaving major gaps.

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

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

The schema provides descriptions for each parameter (url, host, json, zone), but their relevance to the tool's purpose is unclear. For example, 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', which suggests validation, but the tool name and description are about timezone names. The parameters do not coherently map to a clear function, so the descriptions add little 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 is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') that does not clearly state the tool's action or purpose. It is ambiguous whether the tool returns a list, validates names, or performs some other operation. The verb is missing, making it impossible to understand what the tool does.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., timezone, utc-time). The description offers no conditions or examples, so an agent cannot decide when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Fetch' and 'return'), but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects. Since there are no annotations, this implicit information is the only transparency provided.

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

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

The description is concise and to the point, using a single clear sentence. However, it lacks any structure or additional context, but this is acceptable given its brevity.

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

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

While the purpose is clear, the overall context is incomplete because the parameter mismatches create confusion. An agent cannot determine which parameters are relevant or how they relate to fetching robots.txt, so the description fails to provide a complete understanding.

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

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

The parameter descriptions are completely mismatched with the tool's purpose. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'json' as 'JSON text to validate', which have no relevance to fetching robots.txt. This is a severe flaw that would mislead an agent.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: fetching a public robots.txt and returning group counts. It uses a specific verb and resource, making it distinct from siblings like validate-json or timezone.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios where it is preferred or how it differs from other tools.

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

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

The description implies a language-related function, but the parameters suggest a completely different operation. It does not disclose any actual behavior or 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 extremely short but conveys no useful information. It is not concise in a helpful way; it is simply vague.

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

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

The tool lacks any meaningful context. The description does not align with the input schema or the sibling tools, leaving the agent completely in the dark.

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

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

Although each parameter has a generic description, the tool description does not explain how these parameters are used or what they represent in the context of the tool. The mismatch makes them meaningless.

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

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

The description 'ISO 9001 language tag pt.' is nonsensical and does not match the provided parameters (url, host, json, zone). It fails to state what the tool actually does.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool or how it relates to the sibling tools. The description provides no actionable 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 and no mention of side effects, permissions, or side-effect-free behavior, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It is implied to be a read-only operation, but this is not stated.

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, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the tool's behavior. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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

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

The description is complete for the core URL normalization task, but it does not address the other parameters or describe the output structure. In the absence of an output schema, some context about the return format or parameter usage would improve completeness.

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

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

The schema provides 100% coverage for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning only for the 'url' parameter (dropping query/fragment), but does not clarify how 'host', 'json', or 'zone' relate to the tool's purpose, even though they have schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's primary function: returning origin, host, and path from a URL while dropping query and fragment. This is specific and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools are not direct substitutes, the description lacks explicit context or scenarios for its application.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Catalog' implies a read-only reference, but it does not state whether the tool makes any external calls, whether it requires network access, or what it returns. It also does not explain how the parameters affect behavior, leaving side effects and data usage opaque.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence, which is appropriately sized for a simple reference tool. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently packed; it does not include essential context about parameters or usage. It is concise but not structured to maximize usefulness.

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

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

For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain the return value, how parameters are consumed, or any behavioral nuances. An agent has no basis for selecting or invoking this tool correctly beyond guessing.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, but the tool description adds no explanation of how these parameters relate to the catalog. An agent cannot infer whether the parameters are filters, inputs for normalization, or entirely unused. The description fails to bridge the schema 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 states a clear purpose: a short catalog of common HTTP status codes. It is specific about the resource (status codes) and the action (catalog). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the sibling tools are clearly about different domains (citation, compatibility, etc.), so the purpose is distinct enough.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for use, or when not to use it. The description is purely descriptive and offers no decision-support for an agent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states the basic function but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what output format to expect, or any error behavior.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words or redundant information. It is efficiently structured and easy to read.

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

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

The description lacks essential context: no output schema, no required parameters, no error conditions, and no explanation of how the extra parameters relate to the tool. The mismatch between the description and the parameter schema makes the tool's intended usage unclear.

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

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

The schema includes four parameters but only 'zone' aligns with the described timezone purpose. 'url', 'host', and 'json' have descriptions unrelated to the tool's stated function, creating a significant mismatch between the description and 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 clearly identifies the tool as returning the current time for a named IANA timezone, which distinguishes it from related tools like utc-time. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb-led instruction and does not mention the sibling 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. The description implies use for named timezones but does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

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 and a minimal description, there is no disclosure of side effects, read-only status, authentication requirements, or error behavior. The agent cannot infer whether the tool is safe, reversible, or if it might fail under certain conditions.

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

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

The description is exceptionally concise—a single sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous detail. No wasted words or redundant phrasing.

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

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

The description fails to explain why the tool accepts parameters like url, host, json, and zone, which are clearly irrelevant to generating a UTC timestamp. This severe mismatch leaves the tool's purpose and usage context incomplete and confusing, potentially leading to incorrect invocations.

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 lists four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with descriptions that appear arbitrary and unrelated to a UTC timestamp tool. Each description suggests a different purpose (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), creating complete confusion about what inputs are actually expected or how they affect the output.

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

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

The description 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the tool's function in a single, unambiguous phrase. It specifies both the action (current) and the output format (UTC timestamp), leaving no doubt about the tool's 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'validate-json', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

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

There are no annotations, and the description is minimal. It mentions the body is discarded but does not clarify the return value, error handling, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, with a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and the discarding of the body. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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

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

The description is too sparse for a tool that likely has a boolean or error output. It does not explain what constitutes valid JSON, how the result is returned, or how the parameters relate to the validation process. The missing output schema further reduces completeness.

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

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

While all four parameters have descriptions, the descriptions for url, host, and timezone are mismatched with the tool's purpose (they appear copied from other tools). Only the 'json' parameter description aligns with the tool's function. This provides misleading semantics.

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 checks whether a body is valid JSON, using the specific verb 'Check' and a clear resource. However, the schema includes unrelated parameters (url, host, timezone) that are not explained, causing slight confusion.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any usage context. It only states the tool's function without advising on appropriate scenarios.

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