Language rw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It materials that task text or inputs are discarded and 'returns connection methods', which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, cost implications of 'pay-per-call', or the shape of the returned result, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 at only two sentences and leads with the core action. The only preventable word is that 'Task text discarded' could be clearer placed or worded, but there is no padding or redundant repetition of schema information.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional schema parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives only a high-level outcome ('returns connection methods') and does not explain how a task maps to the correct inputs, what an agent should pass for a given use case, or what the result structure looks like. This is insufficient for reliable 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 input schema already documents all 9 parameters with explanations, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much mapping between task categories (weather, search, scrape, voice) and the parameters such as city, query, or url; it relies on the schema without adding selection 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 clearly identifies the tool as a finder of a public pay-per-call tool gateway, gives task examples (weather, search, scrape, voice), and states the output is connection methods. This is more specific than a tautology and gives the tool a distinct role, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools.

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

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

The phrase 'for a task such as weather, search, scrape, or voice' implies when the tool should be used, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent gets partial guidance but must infer the boundary 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that no browser is launched, leaving unclear whether the check makes a network request, what 'can be opened' means, whether it is purely local, and what side effects may 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 description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds the most important behavioral caveat, so every sentence 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?

This is a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description explains only the core purpose. It does not clarify what a successful 'able to open' result looks like, how the extra parameters (ref, city, json, path, etc.) interact with the main check, or how this tool differs operationally from closely named siblings.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat them. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is exactly what the baseline of 3 assumes for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a distinguishing behavioral note: 'No browser is launched.' This differentiates it from a potential browser-rendering sibling like playwright-url-ok, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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

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

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status, web-fetch, or playwright-url-ok. 'No browser is launched' hints at a lightweight check, but it does not state a concrete condition like 'use when you only need connectivity without rendering.'

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 only behavioral claim is 'Expression discarded,' which suggests some input is not retained, but nothing is said about whether a numeric result is returned, how invalid expressions are handled, or what side effects occur, and no annotations are available to carry that burden. For an evaluation tool, this was not enough operational 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 very short and front-loaded with the primary action, which is structurally concise. However, the second sentence 'Expression discarded' creates ambiguity and the two sentences together do not compensate for the missing guidance, so the structure is compact but not especially effective.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should not supply enough context to select and call it correctly. It does not explain the relationship between the schema and the 'arithmetic expression' claim, does not describe return behavior, and never clarifies which valid input to provide. This is a bare statement for a substantial service.

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 parameters have individual schema descriptions so the baseline is 3, but the top-level description does not link 'expression' to any of the nine properties, so an agent cannot determine which parameter corresponds to the arithmetic expression. The phrase 'a+b' suggests a parameter set that does not exist, making the description actively disconnected from the schema rather than helpful.

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

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

The description does say 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic,' which names a specific action and subject. However, the statement is vague because the schema exposes nine string properties and none of them represents an arithmetic expression, so an agent cannot see what input communicates 'a+b'. The appended 'Expression discarded' also clouds the purpose by suggesting the expression may not be used for computation.

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 any of the sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no indication whether it is for simple arithmetic checks or for any of the listed ref/url/city/feed/query shapes. Saying 'Expression discarded' gives a partial behavioral hint but does not guide an agent toward a correct invocation.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It honestly states 'Page content is not stored,' which is a useful privacy disclosure. However, it fails to disclose that the other eight parameters are accepted and then discarded, and it gives no hints about network access, error handling, or the actual shape of the returned data.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main outcome is front-loaded, and the storage behavior note follows naturally. Each sentence earns a place, but the brevity leaves gaps elsewhere.

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

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

Given nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It returns only the field list ('host, scheme, HTTP status') without a structure, doesn't mention that every non-url parameter is ignored, and gives no error or edge-case behavior. An agent cannot be confident about what to pass 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 the schema already documents all nine parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond hinting that 'url' is the important one. With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; no bonus 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is clear and concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch, which might also deal with HTTP status and URLs.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions excluded cases, prerequisites, or names sibling tools to route the agent. Implicit usage is only through the phrase 'for a URL', but no conditions or exclusions are 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?

With no annotations, the description must fully carry the behavioral disclosure. It only states that identifiers are not retained, which gives a privacy guarantee but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what it does with the inputs, or what output to expect. This is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified and lacks any meaningful structure. It is more akin to a placeholder than a concise description.

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

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

Given the tool's 9 parameters, zero annotations, and lack of output schema, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what this tool does, how to invoke it, or what results to expect, making it disastrous for agent use.

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 a 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, including per-parameter explanations. The description adds no extra semantic information, so baseline 3 is applied.

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 'Show how this request is classified,' which is vague and does not specify the nature of the classification or what inputs it applies to. It does not distinguish the tool from its siblings like domain-shape or validate-json, and the term 'request' is undefined.

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 other tools. No context, conditions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent without direction.

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

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

The description discloses that the tool does not return WHOIS/ownership data, which is a behavioral limitation. Yet no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention return format, mutations, persistence, or side effects; some of this is hidden in schema descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after', 'no disk access'), but the tool description itself stays largely implicit.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately provides a meaningful limitation. No redundant words; every element adds information.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool does with all of them and what kind of result it produces. The current text only covers the hostname case and leaves callers to guess whether city, path, JSON, query, etc., are accepted and how they relate to the hostname split. This is a significant completeness 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already explained in the structured part of the tool. The tool description only reinforces the meaning of the hostname parameter ('split into labels') and does not add semantic nuance to other parameters. This meets the baseline for interaction with rich schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action on one resource ('Split a hostname into labels') and the negative constraint ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. However, the input schema lists nine non-hostname parameters, so the description does not fully reflect the tool's apparently broader input surface.

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 phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies a use case where the agent only needs host labels and not ownership enrichment. It does not, however, mention alternatives or give an explicit 'use this when...' guidance that would help the agent pick this tool over sibling shape tools or other URL utilities.

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

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

The description discloses key behavior: it uses HEAD, only operates on public URLs, and does not return body content. Since annotations are absent, it carries the full behavioral burden, but it leaves unclear what 'status' includes, whether redirects are followed, and what happens for the many non-URL schema fields.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the key discriminators ('HEAD', 'public URL', 'status only') are front-loaded. It is concise, though it is terse enough that some selection behavior and parameter nuance has to come from elsewhere.

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

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

For a tool with no output examples, nine optional parameters, zero required parameters, and many similar siblings, this description is not sufficiently complete. It does not explain expected return values, valid parameter combinations, or why parameters other than `url` would be passed, so an agent is left guessing about invocation rules.

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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate even though the description adds no per-parameter detail. The description does tie the `url`` parameter to the HEAD behavior, but it does not explain why the other nine optional parameters exist or how they relate to the stated operation.

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: it HEADs a public URL and returns only the status. This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings that fetch bodies, normalize URLs, or rely on browser rendering. The phrase 'status only' narrows the behavior precisely.

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 fact that it performs a HEAD request and returns status only implicitly tells an agent when to use it (when only reachability or status is needed). However, it does not explicitly direct the agent to alternatives such as web-fetch, browser-url-ok, or playwright-url-ok, nor does it state when to avoid 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 behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' This does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it makes network calls, what it returns, or what happens to the other inputs.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose, but the second sentence 'Path discarded' is a confusing fragment. It reads more like a cryptic note than a helpful clarification, so conciseness comes at the cost of 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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, two sentences provide far too little context. The description does not explain what the tool returns, which parameters are actually used, or why unrelated parameters such as timezone and weather are present.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter-level details in the description. The description adds only a 'Figma file' qualifier to the `url` parameter, but it does not clarify the purpose of the other eight unrelated parameters like `city`, `feed`, `json`, and `query`.

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 broadly distinguishes this tool from sibling URL/shape tools like normalize-url or github-repo-shape. The phrase 'Path discarded' is vague and adds noise but does not undermine the core 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 gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools such as normalize-url or github-repo-shape. The only usage signal is the 'Figma file URL' phrase, which is implied rather than spelled out.

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 at all, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a real behavioral trait ('No disk access'), which is important. However, it does not say what a 'safe' check returns, how invalid inputs are handled, or what guarantees 'looks safe' provides, leaving gaps in the payoff for an 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 exactly two sentences, front-loads the core action, and keeps a key qualifier ('No disk access') short. It earns its place without waste, though it could have used a third sentence to clarify return semantics.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin: it does not explain expected return ('ok?' boolean, errors), define what a 'safe' path is (absolute vs relative, traversal, etc.), or address the 8 unrelated optional parameters. An agent would need to infer most of the calling 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%, so each parameter already has descriptive text. The description does not add further parameter context, but it doesn't need to repeat the schema; baseline 3 is applied. Some confusion remains because many optional params (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) appear irrelevant to a path-checking tool, a schema-level issue rather than a description issue.

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?

States a specific verb 'check' and resource 'a path', and clarifies the check is a safety/shape validation with 'looks safe'. It is not a tautology and is understandable for a single-purpose tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape or jira-key-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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of which of the 9 optional parameters actually matter for the stated purpose. 'No disk access' implies a cost/hint but does not explain when to prefer this over other validators or how to handle the many unrelated 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions the external provider Open-Meteo. It does not explain that many parameters are ignored or discarded, that this is a network call, or what the success or failure behavior looks like.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated schema information. The brevity is a strength, though the lack of detail makes it less useful than a slightly longer, fuller one-liner.

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

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

With nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, one sentence is insufficient. It does not state which parameter to populate, whether extra parameters can safety be ignored, or what the output shape looks like; an agent cannot act confidently from 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; each parameter has its own textual explanation. However, the description contributes no mapping between the geocoding task and the `city` parameter, and it does not help an agent decide which of the nine optional parameters matter.

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

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

The description states a concrete function: return latitude and longitude for a place, and names the underlying provider, Open-Meteo. It is distinguishable from sibling weather and timezone tools, though it never ties the function to the `city` parameter or mentions the many unrelated schema parameters.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as weather-hint or timezone, and no mention of prerequisites or input selection. A caller is left to infer that `city` is the relevant parameter 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It says 'parse' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format looks like, whether invalid URLs raise errors, or whether any side effects occur. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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

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

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It gives the essential purpose without extraneous detail, earning a high score for conciseness even though other dimensions lack content.

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, a one-sentence description is critically incomplete. It does not explain which parameters are relevant, how the output is shaped, validation behavior, or error handling, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it reliably.

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% (baseline 3), and the description adds key meaning by clarifying that the URL is a GitHub URL and the intended result is an owner/repo extraction. This is not present in the generic param description 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'. However, it provides no guidance for 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 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL' uses a specific verb (parse) and names the entity (owner and repo) plus the input source (GitHub URL). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling URL-shape tools like figma-url-shape and jira-key-shape, even without explicit comparison.

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 like normalize-url or other *-shape tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or examples of appropriate use cases.

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 for behavioral disclosure. It does mention that titles are discarded, but it remains silent on output format, network access, whether any of the 9 optional parameters actually affect the result, and whether calling with no arguments is sufficient.

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 exactly the essential information: what the tool does and which detail is discarded. The content is front-loaded and every word earns its place; there is no padding.

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

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

With no output schema, no annotations, and a 9-parameter optional schema, an agent needs more context about return values and expected usage. The description does not state what the returned count looks like, whether parameters are meant to be left out, or why the unrelated parameters exist, leaving a material knowledge 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds almost nothing beyond the schema; 'titles discarded' echoes the param descriptions but does not clarify how any of the 9 parameters (ref, city, zone, path, etc.) relate to the HN count or which—if any—parameter should be supplied.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('count') and a well-defined resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), and adds the meaningful detail that titles are discarded. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings, none of which appear to offer an HN count.

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 call this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state conditions, prerequisites, or provide any when-to-use/when-not-to-use context, so an agent is left to infer when 'hn-front-count' is the right choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only implies that the tool provides or references a read-only list of timezone names. It does not state what is returned, how the supplied parameters affect the call, or confirm that all inputs are non-destructive.

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, front-loaded, and free of filler. However, given the 9-parameter schema and no output schema, the one-sentence structure is concise to the point of being under-specified, though still not bloated.

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?

A 9-parameter tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations needs far more context than one sentence. An agent cannot decide which parameter to pass, whether an empty call is valid, or what the expected return shape is.

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 though the description itself gives no parameter-level detail. The description's mention of timezone names hints that zone is the relevant parameter, but the eight other optional parameters are left disconnected and unexplained.

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 ('Common IANA timezone names') and a domain ('for clock calls'), but it does not state an action or output clearly: it is unclear whether the tool returns the list, validates a zone, or selects from a known set. It is not a pure tautology, but the one-line noun phrase is too vague to fully distinguish it from a tool like 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?

The phrase 'for clock calls' provides only weak contextual color and no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings like timezone, utc-time, or weather-hint. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no 'use this when... / use that when...' direction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that this is a public network fetch and that only group counts are returned, implicitly read-only. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, valid URL form, or what happens for missing robots.txt files.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that uses every word efficiently. No filler, no repetition, and the 'group counts only' qualifier is clear and 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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not state which parameter targets the robots.txt, does not clarify how the returned group counts are structured, and does not account for failure modes or edge cases.

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

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

The schema covers all nine parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3 even without addtional param info in the description. However, the description does not map 'public robots.txt' to any of the parameters—there is no 'robots.txt URL' parameter and no indication that host, url, or path should be populated.

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 precisely names the resource (public robots.txt), the action (fetch), and the output (group counts only). This makes the tool easily distinguishable from sibling tools like web-fetch and fetch-status without needing to open their schemas.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web-fetch, domain-shape, or browser-url-ok, and no conditions or exclusions are given. The agent is left to infer use cases from 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?

With no annotations provided at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Key discarded' does hint that the input is not persisted, but it never states whether the shape check happens offline or against Jira data, what the return value is, how invalid input is handled, or what permissions/connectivity the tool requires. That is too thin for a safety-profile-free 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?

It is short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than economy. Twelve words cannot convey how an agent is supposed to supply the checked key among nine open string parameters, so the brevity is purchased at the cost of critical information.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, 0 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is grossly insufficient. An agent cannot determine the expected input (which of the nine parameters applies), the return format, or the failure modes, leaving the tool effectively unusable from its definition.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, which normally implies a baseline of 3, but the schema descriptions (JSON to validate, weather hint, normalize URL, Git ref, timezone) clearly belong to unrelated sibling tools and do not explain any connection to a Jira issue key. The description adds no mapping from the nine parameters to the stated purpose, so the agent cannot tell which field, if any, holds the key.

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 object — 'Check a Jira issue key shape' — which is nominally clear and distinguishes the tool by its resource. But the statement is nearly a restatement of the tool name, and the schema offers no 'key' parameter, so an agent cannot connect the stated purpose to any actual input. It loses points because the purpose is effectively unreachable from the surrounding definition.

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 choose this tool over sibling shape-checkers such as github-repo-shape, figma-url-shape, or wiki-title-ok. There are no prerequisites, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternative routing information.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral characteristics. Any insights about discarding values or avoiding disk access exist only in parameter descriptions, which are part of the schema, 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 extremely terse and front-loaded, but it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It is closer to under-specification than concise, meaningful content.

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 description must compensate significantly. It only gives an ISO code without explaining what the tool returns, when to invoke it, or how parameters relate. This is inadequate for correct use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema already documents each parameter's purpose, so the minimum viable score 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 'ISO 639 language tag rw' is a noun phrase, not an action or a resource description. It does not state what the tool does with the tag, and it barely distinguishes itself from the name 'lang-rw'. It also gives no relation to the nine diverse parameters.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, validate-json, or file-path-ok. The description gives no 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the body is discarded and only the status is returned, which is useful, but it omits any side effects, authentication, or rate limits. Moreover, the schema includes parameters like city, zone, json, and query that seem unrelated to the stated purpose, creating ambiguity and leaving the tool's behavior unclear for those inputs.

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

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

The description is only two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('HTTP status') and adds the key behavioral note ('Body discarded') immediately. 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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the tool's purpose (e.g., which parameter is the URL?), nor does it describe the return format. An agent would struggle to decide which parameter to supply for a typical use case involving a library docs URL.

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 parameters are described in the schema itself. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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: it returns the HTTP status for a public library docs URL and discards the body. The verb 'HTTP status' and resource 'public library docs URL' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, so it is a solid 4 rather than 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, exclusions, or alternatives like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, leaving the agent to infer the scope on its own.

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 'Values discarded,' which hints at a lack of persistence but gives no information about side effects, permissions, or what happens to non-JSON inputs. The schema hints that many parameters are 'discarded after the check,' but the description itself is almost completely silent on 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?

At one sentence, the description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits critical context about parameter usage and return values, and it lacks any structure that front-loads important constraints. Conciseness only works when the remaining text is sufficient, which it is not here.

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 output schema, and no annotations. Despite this complexity, the description provides no information about expected inputs, how to invoke the tool correctly, or what the return value looks like. It is severely incomplete for an agent to use this tool safely and effectively.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions already mention discarding and shape checks, but the tool description adds no insight into how parameters relate to the counting function. It neither clarifies which parameter is the primary JSON input nor explains the varied parameter purposes, so it does not add value beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Count keys in a JSON object'), but it does not clarify how this relates to the tool's 9 input parameters, several of which reference URLs, timezones, and other non-JSON data. The purpose is clear for a narrow JSON case but ambiguous for the rest of the schema. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like validate-json, but the counting intent 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of any preconditions, which parameter to provide, or whether a single parameter is expected at a time. The description offers no context to help an agent choose this tool over 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 provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the output transformation (dropping query and fragment) but says nothing about side effects or network access, invalid input handling, or which parameters actually affect the result. The presence of nine irrelevant-looking optional parameters makes the lack of a behavioral clarification particularly problematic.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence is front-loaded with the purpose, and the second adds a meaningful behavioral detail. It is appropriately succinct for a simple utility.

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 a clear purpose statement, the context is incomplete because the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description never instructs which parameter to populate or whether the other fields are ignored, so an agent cannot confidently invoke the tool purely from this text in the context of the sibling 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter guidance; it does not say that `url` is the relevant field. The schema already describes `url` as the HTTPS URL to normalize, but the crowded list of unrelated parameters is not clarified by 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 uses a concrete verb ('Return') and names an exact output set ('origin, host, and path'), plus a distinguishing behavior ('Query and fragment are dropped'). This differentiates it from URL validation/fetch siblings, but it never says that the `url` parameter is the input, and the phrase 'for a URL' leaves the input mapping slightly 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 call this tool instead of sibling tools such as browser-url-ok, web-fetch, or fetch-status. The description gives no 'use this when' / 'use that instead' advice, so an agent must rely entirely on the tool name to infer 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does note 'No browser is launched,' which is a useful negative statement, but it does not explain what the tool actually does (network request, validation, etc.), what it returns, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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

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

The description is a single vague sentence that is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to front-load key details (such as the scope of parameters or what constitutes a successful check) and provides barely any information for an agent to act on.

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, many appearing unrelated to URL checking (e.g., city, feed, json, path, zone), and no output schema. The description does not explain why these parameters exist or how they relate to the stated purpose. This is severely incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior or anticipate its response.

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 parameters individually. The description adds no extra meaning or context about how the parameters relate to the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description offers no added value beyond 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened'), which gives a basic action. However, it lacks specificity about what 'opened' means (HTTP status, DNS resolution, etc.) and does nothing to differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, which likely have overlapping purposes.

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 conditions, exclusions, or suggest any sibling tool as a better fit for certain scenarios. An agent has no basis for selecting this tool over the many similar ones in the sibling list.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries all the behavioral burden, but it only says 'Query discarded.' It does not disclose whether it contacts external services, what return format is expected, or whether the eight other parameters are ignored, which is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is two sentences, ten words total after the main clause, and fully front-loaded. Every word carries semantic weight; there is no 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too minimal—it never clarifies that only 'query' is relevant, what the caller receives back, or how the other parameters should be treated.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description's 'discarded' statement merely repeats what the query parameter schema already says, adding no new information.

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 exactly what the tool does: count characters in a search query. It distinguishes itself from the sibling shape- and validation-oriented tools by describing a measurement action, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with any named sibling.

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 vs. alternatives like normalize-url or wiki-title-ok. The description only states what it does and gives 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The bare phrase "catalog of common HTTP status codes" only implies a read-only reference and says nothing about output format, side effects, or the fact that all nine parameters are discarded. The schema parameter descriptions mention discarding, but the tool description itself is uninformative.

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 compact, with no wasted words or filler. However, its brevity reflects a sample rather than a sufficient tool definition; it lacks the detail needed to make the tool easy to call correctly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, and 9 optional parameters that are all described as "discarded". The description does not say what the agent should actually pass (or that it should pass nothing) and does not explain what a "silent catalog" delivers. An agent is left guessing about return content and whether a parameter is meaningful.

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 of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify why the nine parameters are present in a status-code catalog, but the schema already documents each parameter explicitly enough to me.

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 resource as a catalog of HTTP status codes, making it evident this is a reference tool rather than a network fetch tool. However, it does not use a verb like "returns" or "lists" and does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or whether any parameters should be supplied. The sibling set includes fetch-status, which could be confused for a status-checking tool, but the description gives no usage context to discriminate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds 'Prompt discarded', which is sparse and not anchored to any real parameter. It fails to mention that all 9 parameters are ignored, that the output is a fixed template, or what side effects (if any) occur, leaving the agent in the dark about the tool's 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 short, with the main action front-loaded. However, the second sentence is cryptic and adds ambiguity rather than clarity. While it is concise, the lack of usable structure makes it under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no other documentation.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no description of the returned template, the definition is severely incomplete. The agent cannot tell whether the parameters are required, how they influence the output, or what form the three-step template takes. It is far below the minimum for safe and 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 has 100% description coverage, and each param has explicit 'discarded' semantics, so the schema already provides most of the needed parameter context. The tool description itself does not add any additional meaning about how parameters are validated or which ones matter, but no penalty needed because the schema covers the details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' However, the meaning is vague because 'three-step thinking template' is not detailed, and 'Prompt discarded' introduces a cryptic element without explaining what 'prompt' means or why no prompt parameter exists. It does not clearly differentiate itself from other tools that might return static templates.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, conditions, exclusions, or alternative sibling tools. 'Prompt discarded' is a behavioral statement, not a usage guideline.

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 full responsibility for disclosing side effects or constraints. It does not mention that many of the schema parameters (e.g., ref, url, feed) are discarded or irrelevant, nor any other behavioral details such as formatting, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is silent on these aspects.

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

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

The description is a single, short sentence with no filler. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero unnecessary words.

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

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

Despite the simplicity of the tool's real function, the schema lists nine optional parameters, including many that are clearly unrelated (e.g., git refs, weather hints). The description does not guide the agent on which parameter to supply (likely 'zone'), nor does it explain the tool's return format or limits. Given the abundance of irrelevant parameters, the description is insufficient for a confident 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 input schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify which of the many parameters are relevant for a timezone lookup. It neither reinforces nor supplements the 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 states a specific action ('Current time') and a clear resource ('named IANA timezone'). It is unambiguous about what the tool returns and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like utc-time (which would be a specific zone) and iana-zones (which lists zones). The purpose is immediately clear.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and sibling 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, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the output value and does not disclose that the tool is read-only, that inputs are ignored or discarded, whether a call is always successful, or what the timestamp format 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 short and avoids waste, but it is terse rather than suitably structured. A single noun phrase does little to orient an agent, especially given the unusual 9-parameter schema.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the return format and the tool's read-only/no-side-effect behavior; it does neither. It is adequate for trying a bare invocation, but not for confidently selecting and correctly using the tool against its siblings.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage and already documents each parameter, including the fact that several values are discarded. The tool description itself adds no parametric meaning, so it stays at the schema-coverage baseline of 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 names the exact output, a current UTC timestamp, which is understandable and helps distinguish it from timezone-related siblings. It lacks an explicit verb and does not explain why the tool accepts many discarded parameters, but the primary purpose is not vague or tautological.

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, and no mention of alternatives such as timezone or iana-zones. The description only implies the obvious case of needing a UTC timestamp, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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

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

The description discloses that the body is discarded after the check, which adds a significant behavior beyond the schema comments. However, with no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it makes external requests, or whether it can operate on larger payloads. The 'discarded' trait is useful but incomplete for a full behavioral picture.

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 terse, two-sentence statement with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action. However, given the tool's nine-parameter schema, the economy crosses into under-caption: crucial information about parameter selection is omitted. Still, it is concise in form, so it avoids prose bloat and remains efficient.

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 definition is not complete for a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description never explains how an agent should use the other parameters or which one is the 'body'. It does not state what the agent receives after the check or under what conditions the tool is applicable. While the schema helps with the 'json' parameter, the presence of the many unrelated parameters without any explaining is a significant contextual gap, leaving the tool's interface partly opaque.

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

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

The schema already provides descriptions for all nine parameters, so the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds almost nothing about parameters beyond using the word 'body', which loosely corresponds to the 'json' parameter. It does not clarify the purpose of the other eight parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, path, zone, query), leaving the meaning of those fields to the schema. This is exactly the baseline-3 scenario where the schema describes parameters and the description adds minimal 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 clear, specific function: checking whether a body is valid JSON. This distinguishes it from sibling validators such as browser-url-ok or file-path-ok. However, it refers to a generic 'body' while the schema includes nine parameters, none explicitly named 'body', which creates some ambiguity about which parameter is the JSON input.

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 validator versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools, exclusion conditions, or typical use cases. An agent would need to infer from the name that it is the tool for JSON validation, but no positive or negative selection criteria are provided.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It names Open-Meteo as a third-party source, which implies a read-only network call, but it does not disclose side effects, idempotence, rate limiting, potentially limited availability, or the fact that the multiple non-city parameters are discarded. The schema per-parameter 'discarded' notes help but the tool-level description remains under-explanatory.

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, waste-free sentence with the core term 'current temperature' front-loaded. It is concise and easy to parse. However, it is truncated to the point of under-specification, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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

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

Given nine parameters, no output schema, and no general annotations, the description is not nearly complete. It does not explain what the tool returns (just 'temperature' first), what units are used, what happens on an unknown city, or whether the other parameters can be ignored. An agent can identify the intended use, but cannot confidently predict the result without extra prior knowledge of Open-Meteo.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics: it does not specify units (Celsius/Fahrenheit), city matching behavior, or interaction among the nine parameters. It relies entirely on 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 action and resource: get the current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like timezone or utc-time. However, the description says nothing about the eight other parameters in the schema, so the scope is narrower than the input schema implies, creating some ambiguity about what this tool actually handles.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as geo-hint or fetch-status. There is no mention of conditions like 'use when the user asks for current weather' or exclusions like 'do not use for forecasts.' The usage context is only subtly implied by the phrase 'current temperature.'

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 that the body is discarded is a meaningful behavioral disclosure, and the description clearly scopes the output to status and content type. However, with no annotations, the description still omits other relevant behavior such as redirect handling, network access, auth requirements, or what happens with the many non-URL parameters.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short lines, no redundancy, and the core information is front-loaded. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and behavioral scope.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-line description is not sufficient. It does not explain why the extra parameters exist, what outputs besides status and content type are returned, or how an agent should handle the ambiguity of so many optional fields.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage, including explicit notes about parameters being discarded. The tool description adds nothing above 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 names the specific purpose: getting HTTP status and content type for a public URL, and it explicitly says the body is discarded. It is identifiable against sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, but it does not clearly delimit itself from those siblings, and the large unrelated parameter list makes the scope less crisp.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as browser-url-ok or fetch-status, nor any mention of when not to use it. The phrase 'public URL' gives a weak selection hint, but it is not enough to route an agent confidently.

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 at all, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only says 'Title discarded after the call.' It omits what the tool returns, whether it performs network access, is read-only, or has error cases, and the promised title input is absent from the schema.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded; the first sentence states a purpose and the second is compact. However, the second sentence adds little useful, and the wording is concise mainly because it is under-specified.

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 description is far too thin. It never explains return values, how to choose any parameter, default behavior with no arguments, or whether an actual Wikipedia title can be provided under a different param name.

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

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

Although the schema descriptions already cover all 9 parameters, the description adds no meaningful parameter guidance and actually introduces a phantom 'title' concept. An agent will not know which of the nine optional string fields is the 'title,' so the description hurts rather than helps parameter selection.

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 concrete action ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists') and differentiates from sibling shape-validators, but it is misleading: the input schema has no 'title' parameter and 9 unrelated string fields. With additionalProperties false, an agent cannot actually pass the Wikipedia title the description says it will check.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool should be selected instead. The only implied context is 'Wikipedia title existence,' but neither the schema nor the description explains how to map a title to a parameter.

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