Language ru

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

The note that page content is not stored is a useful privacy hint, but the description does not disclose side effects such as network requests, caching, error behavior, or rate limits. With no annotations provided, the behavioral transparency is limited.

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

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

The description is brief and the two sentences are easy to scan. However, the brevity sacrifices important clarity about the parameters and the relationship to sibling tools.

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 simple stated purpose, the description is insufficient for an agent to know how to correctly supply parameters or interpret results. The sibling tool list provides context, but the description does not leverage it to distinguish this tool's role.

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 are mostly tautological and do not clarify how each parameter is used by this specific tool. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', while 'json' and 'zone' are unrelated to the stated purpose of returning host, scheme, and HTTP status.

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 returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which identifies a core purpose. However, the presence of unrelated parameters (json, zone) and overlap with sibling tools such as normalize-url and status-catalog makes the exact purpose ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url or validate-json. The description does not mention any selection criteria or context that would help an agent choose this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No identifiers are retained,' which addresses privacy but omits whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects occur, or how the classification is performed. The description is insufficiently 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?

The description is extremely short (one sentence) but lacks structure and key details. It is under-specified rather than concise; the statement does not organize information or highlight what an agent needs to know.

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

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

Given four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what classification means, how the parameters influence the result, or what the response looks like. An agent would have to guess at the tool's behavior.

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

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

The input schema documents each parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it never references the four parameters or how they relate to classification. It does not compensate for any gaps, but the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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

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

The description 'Show how this request is classified' is vague about what classification means and does not specify the resource or scope. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like citation or validate-json, leaving the agent unsure what input is expected or what output is produced.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools, 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool does not return WHOIS/ownership data, which is a useful constraint, but it says nothing about the output format, which parameter is consumed, or what happens when multiple parameters are provided. For a tool with no output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to predict the result.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that leads with the primary action ('Split a hostname into labels') and then adds a relevant caveat. There is no fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, it may be too brief for the complexity of the tool, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the agent lacks essential context: which parameter to pass, what the return structure looks like, and how the optional 'json' and 'zone' parameters behave. Given the tool has 4 optional parameters and a specific action, this level of description is inadequate for correct invocation.

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

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

The schema descriptions for all four parameters are complete (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not clarify how 'url' or 'host' relates to the splitting action, nor what 'json' or 'zone' are used for. It adds no value but also does not mislead.

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 primary function: 'Split a hostname into labels.' It also adds a differentiator by noting it does so 'without WHOIS or ownership data,' which helps distinguish it from potential domain-investigation tools. However, it does not explicitly name which parameter (url vs host) is the intended input, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as normalize-url or validate-json. It neither states prerequisites nor mentions alternatives, so an agent has to infer from the tool name and schema alone. This is a significant gap given the diverse set of sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations exist and the description discloses no behavioral traits. The url/host/json parameters hint at network or validation behavior, but nothing is stated about side effects, read-only status, or error handling.

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 with no wasted words, but it's structured as a noun phrase rather than a clear verb statement, which reduces its actionability for an agent.

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 the tool's complexity. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters relate to its purpose, or how it differs from sibling timezone tools. The internal inconsistency between description and parameters compounds the gap.

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

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

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but they describe actions (normalize, cite, validate) that don't cohere with the tool's stated timezone purpose. The mismatch adds confusion rather than clarity.

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

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

The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase that doesn't state a clear action (list, validate, convert?). The parameters (url, host, json) suggest different functionality than timezone names, creating confusion about the tool's actual purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling timezone tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at context but doesn't clarify selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only and returns only counts, but it omits error handling, URL requirements, or what happens if the robots.txt is missing. The mismatch between the description and the schema parameters also introduces confusion.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise, though it may be too terse given the schema mismatch.

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 schema's four parameters and the lack of an output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot confidently determine which parameters to provide (e.g., does it need url or host?) or what 'group counts' means. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the schema leaves significant 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 all four parameters, but they are mismatched with the tool's purpose (e.g., 'JSON text to validate' and 'IANA timezone name' have no relation to robots.txt). The tool description does not clarify which parameters are actually used or how they relate, so it fails to compensate for the schema's generic and misleading 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 states a specific action: fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts. It is clear and uses a verb+resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, which could be relevant in the same inspection suite.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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

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

There are no annotations describing side effects, read-only status, or destructive potential. The description itself does not disclose any behavioral traits, leaving the tool's effects completely opaque.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it is not appropriately sized because it omits essential information about the tool's functionality, making the brevity more harmful than helpful.

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

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

With no annotations and a description that is essentially a language code, the tool lacks any contextual framing. There is no mention of intended use cases, expected inputs/outputs, or relationship to sibling tools, making it nearly impossible to use 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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) are described with generic phrases that are unrelated to the stated language tag. The descriptions appear copied from other tools (e.g., 'JSON text to validate', 'IANA timezone name') and do not clarify how each parameter relates 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 'ISO 639 language tag ru' is a language code, not a statement of what the tool does. It fails to specify any action, resource, or scope, leaving the purpose entirely ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide if this is the appropriate choice.

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

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

The description explains the output format (origin, host, path) and the stripping behavior (query and fragment), which is transparent. However, the presence of unrelated parameters in the schema (host, json, zone) that are not mentioned in the description creates ambiguity about whether they are used or ignored, reducing overall behavioral 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 concise, using a single sentence to convey the core behavior, output, and exclusions. No unnecessary words or repetition are present.

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 because it does not address the extra parameters in the schema. It fails to explain whether 'host', 'json', or 'zone' are accepted, ignored, or influence the output. This leaves a significant gap in understanding the tool's full 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?

The schema defines four optional parameters, but the description only references 'URL' without clarifying which parameter corresponds to it. The other parameters (host, json, zone) are completely unexplained and seem unrelated to the described functionality. This severe mismatch makes parameter semantics nearly unusable for an agent.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's action: it returns the origin, host, and path of a URL, and explicitly mentions that query and fragment are dropped. This is specific and directly tied to the tool name.

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 description implies URL-related use cases, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate-json' or 'timezone', leaving the agent without clear 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?

The description gives no indication of side effects, read-only nature, or any behavioral traits. With no annotations available, this lack of disclosure leaves the tool's behavior completely opaque.

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

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

The description is very brief, which is concise, but it lacks any structure or elaboration. It does not even use a verb phrase, making it more of a label than a functional description. The brevity works against clarity.

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

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

Given the disparate parameters and the lack of any explanation about how they relate to HTTP status codes, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot reasonably infer what inputs are expected or what outputs will be produced.

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 parameters 'url', 'host', 'json', and 'zone' are described with generic phrases (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') that do not connect to HTTP status codes. The schema provides no additional context, so the meaning and role of each parameter in this tool are entirely unclear.

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' is a noun phrase and does not state what action the tool performs. It is unclear whether it looks up, lists, or explains status codes, and the sibling tools like 'citation' and 'validate-json' do not clarify its role.

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 or how to use this tool. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without any usage 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, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the result and does not disclose behavior for invalid zone names, return format, or whether the extra url/host/json parameters affect execution. No side effects are mentioned, leaving important behavioral details unspecified.

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 the key information front-loaded. There is no unnecessary verbosity.

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

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

The description omits return format and does not address the unrelated parameters in the schema. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least state what form the current time takes, and it should reconcile the extra parameters; it does neither.

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 contains four parameters, but only zone matches the tool description; url, host, and json have descriptions unrelated to timezone (normalize/cite, hostname, validate JSON). The tool description does not clarify their relevance or indicate that they are ignored, so parameter semantics are actively misleading.

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 time in a named IANA timezone' clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling utc-time (UTC time) and iana-zones (timezone lists). The verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to select this tool.

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 when to use it (when a named IANA timezone's current time is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions such as utc-time for UTC or iana-zones for list operations. Usage guidance is only implicit through the tool name and 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?

No behavioral details are disclosed beyond the vague phrase 'Current UTC timestamp.' There is no mention of side effects, output format, parameter handling, or expected behavior, and no annotations are provided to supplement this.

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

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

The description is very short and free of fluff, but it is so minimal that it lacks the necessary verb structure and parameter alignment. It is concise, but not adequately structured for a tool 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 description is severely incomplete given the tool's apparent purpose and the mismatched schema. It does not explain what the tool does with the provided parameters, what output to expect, or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving an agent with insufficient context.

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

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

The schema parameters (url, host, json, zone) have descriptions, but they are completely unrelated to the stated purpose of returning the current UTC timestamp. The description adds no meaningful connection between these parameters and the tool's function.

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' gives a basic idea but is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb-driven statement of the tool's function. More importantly, it does not align with the input schema, which includes unrelated parameters like url, host, json, and zone, making the actual purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timezone or validate-json. The description does not mention any conditions, use cases, or distinction from sibling tools.

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

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

The description lacks any disclosure of side effects, safety, or mutation behavior. It mentions 'The body is discarded' but does not explain what this means operationally or whether the tool has any impact on external resources. No annotations are present 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 brief and to the point, but its brevity sacrifices clarity. It is a single sentence without any structured breakdown, which is acceptable for a simple tool but insufficient given the ambiguous purpose and mismatched parameters.

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

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

Given the sibling tools (which are URL and timezone related), the context suggests this tool might validate JSON from a URL or timezone-related input, but this is not stated. The description does not explain how the tool fits into the broader workflow, and there is no output schema or return-value information, leaving significant gaps for the 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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) have descriptions that do not align with the tool's stated purpose of checking a 'body'. The 'json' parameter matches the purpose, but 'url', 'host', and 'zone' appear unrelated and their descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') suggest different functionality. The schema provides no additional clarity.

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

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

The description states 'Check whether a body is valid JSON' but does not clarify what 'body' refers to or how it relates to the parameters (url, host, json, zone). The verb 'check' is present, but the object is ambiguous and the purpose is not specific enough to distinguish from other validation 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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, status-catalog, timezone). The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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