Language sv

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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: page content is not stored. But with no annotations, it carries the full burden and does not mention whether network calls are made, whether it is read-only, or what side effects occur. The schema hints at some behaviors (e.g., 'no disk access' for path), but the description does not consolidate these.

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

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

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the privacy note adds value without waste. This is an example of efficient writing.

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 unrelated parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It only addresses URL citation, while the schema accepts city, feed, json, path, timezone, etc., leaving an agent unable to understand the full scope or appropriate usage.

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 fully documents each of the 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 states a specific verb and resource: returning host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, and the 9-parameter schema suggests a far broader scope than URL citation, creating ambiguity about what the tool actually does.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or why this tool exists alongside siblings. The description gives no context for selecting it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy guarantee, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, what the return value looks like, or how the classification is computed. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. However, the second sentence about identifiers is a secondary note and the overall brevity leaves the tool underspecified; it is concise but not sufficiently informative to earn a higher score.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what classification means, how the parameters relate to the classification, or what the caller should expect as output. This is inadequate for effective 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?

Schema coverage is 100% – every parameter has a description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides meaning. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema covers all params, and the description does not need to repeat it.

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 verb ('Show') and a resource ('this request') but the object 'how this request is classified' is abstract and does not explain what classification means or what categories exist. It does not differentiate from siblings like domain-shape, file-path-ok, or github-repo-shape, which all perform specific shape checks; 'compatibility' could be a router or a checker, but the description leaves that ambiguous.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of what conditions favor it over siblings. The description offers zero 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'split a hostname into labels' and notes the absence of WHOIS/ownership data, but it does not describe side effects, error handling, rate limits, or what happens with the other parameters. The description is too sparse to convey a complete 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 concise, with a single sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters. While front-loading the core action is good, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail about the parameter scope, making it less helpful than it could be.

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 complexity of nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It only explains one aspect (hostname splitting) and leaves the purpose and behavior of the other parameters entirely unexplained. An agent cannot reliably determine what inputs are expected or what the tool does with them.

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

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

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all nine parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description does not clarify how these parameters relate to the stated purpose (splitting a hostname). It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, and the connection between the 'host' parameter and the others is unclear.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('split a hostname into labels'), which is clear for the 'host' parameter, but it fails to address the other eight parameters that suggest a broader, multi-purpose tool. The name 'domain-shape' hints at domain processing, but the mismatch between the narrow description and the diverse parameter set creates confusion about the tool's actual scope.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., github-repo-shape, figma-url-shape, jira-key-shape). The description does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the tool's purpose from context alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about the 'discarded after the call' behavior seen in several schema parameter descriptions, nor does it mention that the tool appears to handle many input types. The only behavior described is temperature retrieval, which is insufficient for a tool with such a broad 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 a single sentence, which is concise in length but severely under-specified. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information; it omits the tool's multi-purpose nature and the fact that most parameters are 'discarded'. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It covers only the weather-hint scenario and leaves the agent to guess what the tool does with the other eight parameters. There is no guidance on return format, error cases, or prerequisites, making the tool essentially unusable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds only the mention of 'city', which is already in the schema. It fails to explain how to select among the nine parameters or which ones are relevant for a given use case, so it does not meaningfully augment the schema's 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 states a specific function—'Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo'—which is a clear verb+resource. However, the schema exposes nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, json, path, query, etc.), implying the tool is a multi-purpose hint checker. The description only covers one case and does not clarify the broader purpose, making it misleading for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools (e.g., geo-hint, timezone, validate-json) or conditions that would select this tool over others. An agent has no contextual cues for choosing it.

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