Language ta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Task text discarded' but this is ambiguous because no parameter named 'task' exists. It does not state whether the tool makes external calls, its read-only nature, rate limits, or what happens to the other 9 parameters. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. The 'Task text discarded' sentence is added value but is unclear, slightly dampening the clarity. Overall it remains tight and readable.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how each parameter contributes to the gateway search, which parameters apply to which task type, or what 'connection methods' look like. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional guidance.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds task examples (weather, search, scrape, voice) that loosely map to parameters like city, query, etc., but does not explicitly connect them. The ambiguous 'Task text discarded' does not clarify which parameter is task text. Minimal added value over 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 ('Find') and resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway'), with example tasks (weather, search, scrape, voice). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like weather-hint, which likely provide direct hints. However, it does not clarify what a 'tool gateway' is, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

It provides context on when to use ('for a task such as weather, search, scrape, or voice') but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or reference to sibling tools, leaving the usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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 does reveal a key behavior ('No browser is launched'), which is useful, but it omits any other behavioral details: what happens with the parameters, side effects, error cases, or response format. A single behavioral note is far from adequate for a tool with 9 parameters and 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 extremely concise, consisting of one sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose. While its brevity is a strength, it borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness, but it doesn't waste words or include irrelevant details.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is a single sentence. There is no explanation of how to invoke the tool correctly, which parameters to use, or what the result of the check looks like. This is severely incomplete for a tool of this complexity and would leave an agent guessing at 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the parameter descriptions are confusing and appear disconnected from the tool's purpose (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint', 'JSON text to validate'). The description itself adds no explanation of how these parameters relate to checking a URL. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of clarity, leaving the agent unable to determine which parameters are relevant or how to provide them.

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.' It distinguishes from siblings like normalize-url and fetch-status by focusing on openability, but it doesn't elaborate on what 'opened' means or how it differs from similar checks. The purpose is clear enough for a basic understanding, though it lacks nuance.

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 its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives or conditions that would make this tool preferable. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context, which is insufficient given the many URL-related sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Expression discarded,' but none of the schema's parameters are named as an expression, so this is not informative about the tool's behavior on the actual arguments. It fails to state what happens to the nine fields, what the tool returns, whether any external effects occur, or what 'discarding' means in practice.

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

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

The text is extremely short, which could be seen as concise efficiency, but the two sentences fail to cover any actual schema as behavior. This is under-specification rather than useful conciseness; the description is short but not structured to help an agent. It also lacks front-loaded information about the tool's true 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?

With nine broad input domains, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. An agent calling this tool has no explanation of what it does with the provided URL, city, query, path, or JSON, objective are already described in the schema, but the tool-level behavior and return value are entirely unspecified. This is a large complexity gap that the description fails to fill.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the nine parameters already has a meaningful explanation in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics and, if anything, introduces a different concept ('arithmetic expression') that not materially map to the schema fields. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline 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 says 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic. Expression discarded,' which implies a math operation, but the input schema contains nine unrelated string parameters (ref, url, city, json, path, etc.) and no arithmetic expression field. An agent cannot tell what this tool actually does or how to differentiate it from similar shape-checking siblings. The purpose is vague and partially misleading rather than informative.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It mentions no conditions, prerequisites, related sibling tools, or typical scenarios. The description also does not explain why these nine fields would be passed to this tool rather than to more specifically named tools like validate-json, normalize-url, or timezone.

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 full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds one useful privacy behavior, 'Page content is not stored,' but it does not disclose whether a network request is made, whether side effects exist, whether permissions are required, or how failures are returned. This is a partial but not complete 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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the main functionality is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by adding a non-obvious privacy guarantee.

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, this description is under-specified. It does not explain which parameter combo is expected, what the return format is, or why such unrelated params like city, json, and zone 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds little parameter-specific meaning. The description mentions only that the tool operates on a URL, while the schema contains 8 other optional parameters (city, feed, json, zone, etc.), leaving the agent without guidance on how those parameters relate to the stated purpose.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb (Return) and the resource (host, scheme, HTTP status for a URL), so an agent understands the core function. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url, and the name 'citation' is not explained.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no conditions, exclusions, or pointers to siblings. The only implicit signal is that it is for URL metadata, but the description does not help an agent choose among the many URL-oriented tools.

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

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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy statement. Without annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects, output format, or constraints, but it says nothing about whether network calls occur, what the classification result looks like, or any other 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 (one sentence) and under-specifies for a tool with 9 mixed parameters. While concise, it lacks any structured information and is not front-loaded with key details because it has almost no 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?

Given the tool has 9 heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what the output represents, how the parameters influence classification, or any usage constraints. An agent would be unable to use this tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already thoroughly documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, matching the baseline of 3 for high 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 says 'Show how this request is classified' but does not specify what classification means, what types of requests are handled, or how the various parameters relate to classification. It is not a complete tautology, but it is vague and fails to differentiate from sibling shape-checking tools like domain-shape or figma-url-shape.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives or conditions for selection. An agent cannot determine whether to call this generic classifier or a more specialized shape checker.

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 disclosing behavior. It only says it splits a hostname and that WHOIS/ownership data is not included; it does not explain the return format, whether any network access is involved, or how the other schema parameters interact with the operation. There is no disclosure of side effects, error cases, or the behavior when multiple parameters are supplied.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('split a hostname into labels') plus a clarifying negative scope ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). There is no filler or repetition, and each clause earns its place. The issue is in what is omitted, not what is included.

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 high complexity (9 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema), this description is far from complete. It describes a use case for `host` only, never mentions what the actual return shape is, and leaves `ref`, `URL`, `city`, `json`, `path`, `query`, and `zone` parameters completely unacknowledged. An agent would be able to guess a reasonable use case for a hostname but would be lost for the other 8 inputs, and even for the host case there is no clarity on the split output order.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description hints at the `host` parameter through 'hostname', but it adds no extra semantics for the 8 other parameters, nor does it clarify how the splitting operation relates to them. It does not go above the minimum because it offers no meaning 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 does state a specific verb and resource: 'split a hostname into labels' and the 'without WHOIS or ownership data' qualifier distinguishes it from lookup-style tools. However, the input schema exposes 9 entirely different parameters (ref, JSON, zone, city, query, path, etc.) and the description only addresses the `host` parameter, so it leaves the tool's overall scope ambiguous and misleadingly narrow.

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 a partial usage boundary: the phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies this tool is for lexical splitting, not domain intelligence. But the description does not name any sibling tool, offer a when-to-use / when-not-to-use contrast, or explain why `domain-shape` is preferable to `github-repo-shape`, `jira-key-shape`, or `normalize-url`.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool uses HEAD and returns status only, which is useful, but it says nothing about the behavior for the other eight parameters (e.g., that they are discarded after checks, that there is no disk access, or that the tool only handles public URLs). This is a significant gap for a tool that appears to be a multi-purpose shape checker.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters. It omits crucial context about the tool's full purpose and behavioral details, so while there is no fluff, the brevity works against comprehension. Front-loading only the URL case is not enough.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It covers only one use case (HEAD URL) and leaves the agent guessing about the other eight parameter types, return format, and edge cases. An agent would be unable to reliably choose this tool over siblings without additional investigation.

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%, meaning every parameter is already described in the input schema (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access'). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a clear verb (HEAD) and resource (public URL) with a specific output (status only). However, the input schema reveals nine parameters covering many different checks (JSON validation, timezone, file paths, etc.) that the description never mentions, so the stated purpose is misleading about the tool's actual scope. It also does not distinguish sufficiently from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or playwright-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 on when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools. The description gives no context about what distinguishes it from browser-url-ok, web-fetch, or other URL/shape-check tools, and no conditions or exclusions 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 provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Path discarded,' which gives one behavioral detail but does not disclose whether the tool makes network calls, whether it is read-only, whether it actually validates the Figma URL, or what is returned. This is too thin for a standalone URL-related 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, and the key action and behavioral note are front-loaded. It is under-specified in content but not lacking in verbal economy.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify which parameter is the Figma URL and what the tool returns. It only says 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded,' which leaves the agent guessing about output format and how this shape check fits into the URL pipeline.

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 almost no parameter-level meaning besides the path/discard hint, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description states a specific action (parse) and resource (Figma file URL), and even adds a behavior detail (path discarded). This is enough to distinguish it from generic URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, though it does not state the return value or whether it validates the URL.

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

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

Use is implied for Figma file URLs, and 'Path discarded' hints that the path component is not meaningful. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok, and there are no when-not notes.

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 usefully discloses that the tool performs 'no disk access,' which is an important behavioral guarantee. However, since no annotations are present, the description carries the full transparency burden and still does not explain what the tool returns, what 'safe' means, or how it handles the unrelated 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It gets to the point quickly, though the resulting brevity leaves important 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?

With nine optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is not enough to safely invoke the tool. An agent does not know which parameter to supply, what happens with the others, or what successful/unexpected output looks like.

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, but the tool description does not add value beyond the schema and, worse, its 'path only' framing is not reconciled with the other eight optional parameters. The description leaves ambiguity about whether `ref`, `url`, `city`, etc. are ignored, accepted, or somehow relevant.

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 operation and resource: checking whether a file path looks safe, with no disk access. It is mostly clear, but it does not define what makes a path 'safe' and the input schema includes several unrelated fields, which muddies 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 guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as browser-url-ok or normalize-url. It also does not say that only the `path` parameter is relevant and that the other schema fields are ignored or discarded.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that most of the 9 parameters are 'discarded after the check' (a fact visible only in the schema), nor does it disclose response format, error behavior, or rate limits for the Open-Meteo call. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero 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 a single efficient sentence that delivers the core purpose with no filler. It loses one point only because it is so minimal that it omits the usage and behavioral context an agent would need, though brevity itself is appropriate.

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 complexity — 9 parameters with no output schema — the description is inadequate. It never explains how 'latitude and longitude for a place' relates to parameters like ref, feed, host, or json, and does not state the expected return value. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the underlying parameter meanings are already documented and baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about how the parameters map to the latitude/longitude purpose — in fact, the schema parameters (ref, url, feed, json, path, zone, query) appear disconnected from a geocoding goal. The description neither compensates for the mismatch nor adds 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 outcome — latitude and longitude for a place — via a named service (Open-Meteo). This is a clear verb+resource statement. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like weather-hint, iana-zones, or timezone, which could all be candidates for location/time queries, so it loses a point on sibling distinction.

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 its alternatives, and there are no exclusions or context about which input scenarios it serves. The description simply states what it computes. An agent has no signal to route between geo-hint and geographically related siblings such as weather-hint or iana-zones.

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 the tool 'parses' a URL, which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not state what is returned, how invalid URLs are handled, or what happens with the unrelated optional 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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action, the resource, and the condition in a compact form.

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, and no output schema, this minimal description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It does not clarify whether url is effectively required, what the parsed result looks like, or how an agent should treat the other parameters.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful context that the URL is meant to be a GitHub repo URL for owner/repo extraction, but it does not explain how the other eight optional parameters fit into the tool's behavior.

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 ('parse') and a specific resource ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling shape tools such as figma-url-shape and jira-key-shape. An agent can tell what this tool is for at a glance.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this when it has a GitHub URL and wants owner/repo. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as normalize-url for general URL handling.

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 mentions that titles are discarded, which hints at the output format (a count without titles), but it does not disclose network access, potential failure modes, rate limits, or what exactly the count represents. The behavior is minimally transparent and leaves key runtime aspects unspecified.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences and no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds a behavioral hint. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, leaving out critical details an agent would need for correct invocation.

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 and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how the parameters might influence the count (if any do), what the return format is beyond a number, or what happens when the front page is unavailable. The description lacks the context needed for an agent to use the tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a generic description, but these descriptions are not tool-specific and do not clarify how they relate to counting HN stories. The description itself does not mention any parameters, leaving the agent unsure which of the 9 optional parameters are relevant or whether any are required. The generic 'discarded' notes in the schema suggest most parameters are ignored, but the description does not confirm that or explain the purpose of accepting them.

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 (count) and the resource (current Hacker News front-page stories), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but no sibling appears to overlap, so the purpose is clear enough for an agent to identify when this tool is relevant.

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, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it. An agent would have to infer usage 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it returns a list, what its output looks like, or whether it only checks/validates zones.

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

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

The description is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient, purposeful writing. It has almost no instructional content and does not earn a high structure 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 nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one vague noun phrase is not sufficient context. The agent still cannot tell how to invoke this tool or what it receives back.

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 without required extra parameter explanation. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already documents each property clearly.

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 hints at a context ('clock calls'), but it never states a specific operation. It could mean 'list zones,' 'validate zones,' or 'return zone metadata,' so the behavior of the tool is left to inference.

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' weakly implies that this tool belongs near timezone/clock operations, so the usage context is hinted rather than absent. However, it provides no clear when-to-use rule and does not differentiate from sibling tools such as timezone or utc-time.

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 claims it fetches a robots.txt, but the schema suggests many parameters are validated and discarded ('discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access', etc.). It does not disclose the full behavior, such as how parameters map to actions, what happens with non-robots inputs, or whether network access is always performed. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to explain the actual behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence without unnecessary words. The key information (fetch robots.txt, return group counts only) is front-loaded. It is appropriately short, though it omits needed details.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain how parameters map to behavior, when to use it, what 'group counts' means, or how errors are handled. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided description.

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 has a description, but those descriptions do not mention robots.txt and instead describe generic validation checks. The tool description does not clarify how to trigger a robots.txt fetch (likely via 'url' or 'host'), leaving a disconnect. It adds no value beyond the schema and actually creates confusion about the intended input.

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 action: fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts. However, the input schema exposes 9 unrelated parameters (city, zone, json, path, etc.) that suggest a much broader validation tool, so the description misrepresents the actual scope and does not help distinguish it from siblings like web-fetch or fetch-status.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when robots.txt fetch is appropriate, or any exclusions. The agent is left without context for selecting this tool among 27 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?

The only disclosed behavior is 'Key discarded', which indicates no storage but does not state whether the check is read-only, whether it makes network calls, or what the response looks like. With no annotations, this leaves major aspects of behavior undisclosed.

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, but its brevity sacrifices necessary information. The second sentence 'Key discarded' is unclear because no parameter is named 'key', so it does not fully earn 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?

With nine parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is far too thin for the agent to invoke correctly. It does not explain how to provide the Jira key, what shape validation returns, or which inputs matter.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the tool description does not map any of the nine parameters to the concept of a 'key'. It uses 'key' without naming an input, adding no binding between the described purpose and the actual parameters.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), but the input schema has no parameter representing a Jira key, so an agent cannot tell which input to use. It also does not differentiate from sibling shape-check tools by scope or parameter.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. It lacks prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for calling 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, and the description gives no behavioral details. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it has side effects, or how its parameters affect the result.

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

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

The description is very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It front-loads the language tag yet omits the essential operational information an agent needs.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a noun-phrase description is insufficient. The agent is left guessing what call to make, which parameters matter, and what the expected response looks like.

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 each of the 9 parameters with individual descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the high-coverage schema earns the baseline score.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase, 'ISO 639 language tag ta', which essentially restates the tool name as a label. It does not state a verb, operation, or resource behavior, so an agent cannot tell whether the tool returns a tag, validates one, or fetches language data.

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 or how it relates to the many siblings. No alternatives, exclusions, or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent without a basis 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral note is 'Body discarded,' which is vaguely useful. However, it does not disclose whether the tool performs network requests, what side effects occur for non-URL parameters, or what status codes are returned. Given the lack of annotations, this 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 concise in word count, but it is under-specified and does not earn its brevity. It front-loads the main claim but omits any operational detail. While conciseness is good, this level of brevity is not 'appropriate' because it leaves critical information unexplained (especially given the tool's complexity).

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

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

With nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It gives no indication of how parameters like 'city' or 'zone' are processed, what the output format is beyond 'HTTP status,' or how the diverse inputs interact. The tool is effectively a black box, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter has some text in the schema. The description itself adds zero parameter information. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not need to repeat schema details. However, it also fails to clarify how these diverse parameters relate to the stated purpose, so it does not add meaningful semantic 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 action ('HTTP status') and a resource ('public library docs URL'), giving a clear surface-level purpose. However, the parameter list includes nine diverse fields (city, feed, json, zone, etc.) that have no logical relation to a library docs URL, making the description misleading about the tool's actual scope. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or web-fetch that likely perform similar HTTP checks.

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 such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. The description does not state expected usage context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds 'Values discarded', which clarifies that input values are ignored, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, return format, potential errors, or side-effect behavior. The tool appears safe to invoke minimally, but transparency is incomplete.

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

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

The entire description is two short, direct sentences: the purpose comes first, then a clarifying note about values. Every word earns its place and there is no fluff.

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 minimal. It clarifies 'Count keys' but does not specify what a response would look like, how zero-key input behaves, or why an agent would need this information. It is adequate for a very simple counting tool, but gaps remain.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already individually documented. The general statement 'Values discarded' does not add much beyond the per-parameter 'discarded' notes already in the schema. It does sum up the intent but offers no new meaning for any specific parameter.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Count keys in a JSON object. Values discarded.' It makes the core action obvious and the scope unambiguous once the input schema is seen. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the uniqueness of the operation is fairly clear from the name and description alone.

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 siblings like validate-json or domain-shape. There are no stated preconditions, alternate tool references, or exclusion rules, leaving selection to inference based mainly on the tool's distinct name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It honestly discloses that query and fragment are dropped and that only origin, host, and path are returned, which is useful behavioral detail beyond the schema. It does not cover error behavior or output formatting, but for a pure read/transform tool this is reasonably transparent.

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

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

Two sentences, no filler, and the key outcome is front-loaded. The critical behavioral caveat about query and fragment being dropped is included without wasted 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?

With 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to know which parameter to populate and how to interpret the result across all the unrelated-looking fields. The core output shape is named, but the ambiguous parameter space is not resolved.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters already carry most semantic weight and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no beyond the discard behavior, and leaves unclear which of the nine optional parameters is actually needed.

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 identifies the exact action and outcome: return origin, host, and path for a URL, dropping query and fragment. This is specific enough for an agent to distinguish it from URL-checking siblings such as browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, or web-fetch.

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 on when to use this tool rather than a sibling, no when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The description focuses on behavior, not selection context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses one behavior (no browser launch), but fails to explain how the check works (e.g., network request, failure modes, side effects). More critically, the parameter schema includes unrelated items (city, json, path, zone) that seem to contradict the stated purpose, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's true 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 concise: two short sentences with the primary verb and resource front-loaded and a key behavioral note second. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient in structure.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It doesn't explain what each parameter does in the context of the tool, how results are returned, error behavior, or differentiation from the many sibling tools. An agent cannot confidently and correctly call this tool based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is warranted. However, the description adds no value in explaining how the 9 parameters relate to the URL-checking purpose. The schema descriptions themselves suggest multiple distinct operations (weather, JSON validation, file path), which do not align with the description's focus and create confusion rather than clarity.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a distinguishing behavioral note ('No browser is launched') that hints at a difference from browser-url-ok. However, it doesn't name the sibling or clarify exactly what 'opened' means (e.g., HTTP reachability vs. format validation), leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The only clue ('No browser is launched') vaguely contrasts with a browser-launching tool, but it doesn't name any sibling or specify conditions under which this tool is preferred over normalize-url, fetch-status, or others.

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 adds the single behavioral note 'Query discarded' but does not disclose how the other eight parameters are handled, whether there is network access, or what the return value looks like—major gaps for a safe and correct invocation.

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

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

Two short sentences contain no filler and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is concise, but almost under-specified in a way that hurts clarity rather than being a model of restraint.

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 leaves too much unsaid. It neither explains the role of the extra parameters nor the return value, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly in the broader context of 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description only refers to 'query' while ignoring the other eight parameters. It does not explain why they exist or whether they are ignored or subject to the same length check, so it fails to add meaning beyond the schema and actually creates ambiguity.

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

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

The description states a clear action—'Count characters in a search query'—with a specific resource (search query). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools as the schema exposes nine parameters, none of which are mentioned by name or role.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of a recommended scenario, deprecated conditions, or how this tool relates to similar length/count tools among its 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 burden of behavioral disclosure, but it says only that the catalog is 'short.' It neither confirms read-only behavior nor discloses side effects, input handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or any post-call effects. The word 'catalog' mildly implies a read-only operation, but this is far too implicit 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 short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient editing. It front-loads only a generic noun phrase and leaves out all operational, behavioral, and contextual information required to use the tool correctly. A concise description should preserve meaning, and this one does not.

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 annotations and no output schema needs a substantial description, but this one supplies only a category label. It does not explain when to invoke the tool, how the parameters relate to HTTP status codes, what the catalog's output format is, or which sibling tools it complements. The definition is effectively unusable for selecting and invoking this tool without external knowledge.

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 input schema already documents every parameter. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline rule for high schema coverage; it does not compensate for the missing connection between the parameters and the stated 'catalog of HTTP status codes.'

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

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

The description is a noun phrase, 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which names the resource but never states an action, invocation behavior, or output type. It is close to a tautology of the tool name and does not distinguish status-catalog from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

There is no usage guidance at all: no when-to-use conditions, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of alternative sibling tools. An agent cannot determine whether to call this tool instead of fetch-status, web-fetch, or normalize-url from the description alone.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the prompt/input is discarded, indicating that the tool ignores its parameters and returns a fixed output. However, it does not describe any side effects, return format, or limitations, leaving significant ambiguity.

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

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

The description is extremely terse—a single sentence. While it is compact, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It omits essential details about the template's content and use, making it more of a stub than a well-structured 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain both behavior and return value, but it does neither. It states the tool returns a template but never describes the template's structure or purpose. With 9 parameters all optional and ignored, an agent would be hard-pressed to know what to do with the output.

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 9 parameters are described in the schema with clear 'discarded' or 'no access' notes, so the schema already covers their semantics. The tool description adds nothing new about parameter usage beyond the blanket statement 'Prompt discarded', which reiterates the schema. Thus the description adds minimal value beyond the high-coverage 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 action ('Return a three-step thinking template') and identifies a specific resource. However, it does not explain what the template is or how it differs from sibling tools that also retrieve information. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints that input is ignored, but the purpose remains vague regarding its intended use.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no basis to decide between this and, say, 'calc-eval' or 'web-fetch'.

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 only states 'current time' without mentioning that the operation is read-only, that unrelated parameters are discarded, or what the output format looks like. The schema indicates other params are discarded, but the description does not surface this.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no fluff and places the purpose first. It is concise, but it may be too spartan given the 9-parameter schema; there is no wasted text, but it could afford a bit more explanatory 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, none required, and no output schema. The description gives no guidance on which parameter to pass or what to expect in return. For a tool that appears to be a utility among many siblings, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent to guess how to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds minimal meaning: it hints that 'zone' is the meaningful parameter by saying 'named IANA timezone', but it does not explicitly instruct the agent to use 'zone' or explain why the other parameters exist. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high 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 clear purpose: getting the current time for a named IANA timezone. It identifies the resource (time in a timezone) and implies an action (fetch/return). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like utc-time or iana-zones, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify that the 'zone' parameter is required, nor does it mention that the other eight parameters are irrelevant or ignored. An agent has no way to know which parameter to fill in.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, yet it only says 'Current UTC timestamp.' It does not disclose side effects, statelessness, output format, or that the many input parameters are irrelevant to the result.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence with no filler, repetition, or marketing language. It is extremely compact and every word contributes to the intended meaning.

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 annotations, the one-sentence description is under-specified. It leaves the return format, parameter role, and no-argument usage implicit, which is a meaningful gap for reliable tool selection.

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; every parameter already has its own meaningful description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema compensates, including the repeated 'discarded' notices.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as returning the current UTC timestamp, so the primary purpose is not ambiguous. It does not use a specific verb and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like timezone or iana-zones, but the core resource is evident.

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 siblings such as timezone or iana-zones. It also does not state that the tool requires no parameters or what kinds of requests should be routed elsewhere.

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 does disclose a meaningful piece of behavioral context: the body is discarded after the check, implying no retention or lasting side effects. However, it does not mention the return value or success/failure behavior, which is important for a validation-only tool.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the very first phrase. Both sentences earn their place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is concise without being padded, but it is slightly too under-specified to deserve a perfect 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?

The tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not describe what the function actually returns, how the validating input is provided, or how to interpret success/failure. The agent is left unsure whether the tool returns a boolean, an error, or a validation report, and this is a clear 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?

The parameter schema already describes all nine parameters and what happens to them, so the description does not need to repeat those details. But it also fails to clarify why the tool accepts many irrelevant-looking parameters like city, feed, host, zone, and query, or whether they are truly ignored. The description adds little beyond what the schema already says.

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 operation on a specific resource: checking whether a body is valid JSON. This is clearly distinct from sibling validators and shape-checkers. However, 'body' is never mapped to a named parameter, and the schema contains many unrelated optional fields, leaving some ambiguity about what exactly gets validated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no stated prerequisite like providing a required payload. The only implicit guidance is that it should be used for JSON validation, but it does nothing to help the agent choose between this and sibling shape/link validators or to explain when not to use 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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions nothing about side effects, that most parameters are discarded, network usage, caching, or response format. It merely states the function without disclosing operational behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and every word adds value, adapting to good brevity for a simple weather tool.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It does not explain how the myriad parameters relate to the weather function, whether only 'city' matters, or what the response looks like. An agent calling it correctly cannot infer the expected return or the irrelevance of most parameters.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Since each parameter is already fully described in the schema, the baseline is 3; the description does not need to repeat details but could have highlighted 'city' as the requireable input.

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

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

The description 'Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo' states a specific verb/resource (retrieve current temperature for a city) and names the data provider (Open-Meteo). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like geo-hint or timezone by scope and action.

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, no conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of which sibling to prefer. It only states the core function, leaving the agent to infer when to call it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions that the body is discarded, which is useful, and implies a read-only HTTP check. However, it omits that the tool can act on many other parameter types (e.g., city triggers a weather hint, zone triggers a timezone check, json validates JSON). This omission is a significant behavioral gap and could mislead an agent into thinking the tool only handles URLs.

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 primary purpose and includes a key behavioral note (body discarded). It avoids fluff and is well-structured. However, for a tool with nine parameters and multiple functions, it is arguably too terse; it leaves out guidance on the other modes, which we consider a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue, so it still earns a 4.

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 high complexity (9 parameters, 0 required, no annotations, no output schema). The description only covers the URL-related behavior and is silent on the other eight parameter types. An agent reading the description alone would not know that the tool also validates JSON, checks timezone names, provides weather hints, etc. Given the schema is available, the agent could infer this, but the description fails to provide the top-level overview needed to guide correct usage across all modes.

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 every parameter already has a detailed explanation. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. It does not attempt to explain the parameter relationships or provide examples, but the schema carries the burden, so a baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: it fetches a URL and returns HTTP status and content type. This is clear and distinguishes it from a tautology. However, it only addresses the URL use case and ignores the many other parameters in the schema (city, zone, json, etc.), so it does not fully convey the tool's multi-purpose nature or differentiate it from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or browser-url-ok. The description does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, and the presence of nine optional parameters with no required ones leaves the agent without direction on which parameter to supply for a given task. The tool description is silent on usage context.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only says the title is discarded after the call, but does not disclose whether a network request happens, whether it is strictly read-only, or what happens when a title does not exist. Minor transparency is provided, but insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded, with no redundant wording. The discard note is an extra behavior hint, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing necessary parameter and usage details.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no mapping of which parameter carries the title, the description is drastically under-specified. An agent cannot determine how to satisfy the tool's stated purpose.

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

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

While schema coverage is 100%, the description is completely disconnected from the schema parameters. Nine fields are listed, none named 'title' or obviously mapped to Wikipedia title existence, and the description adds no meaning to help choose the correct parameter.

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

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

States a specific operation ('check whether a Wikipedia title exists') on a distinct resource, helping distinguish it from sibling shape/url checkers. The wording is direct rather than a tautology, though the schema does not expose a title parameter which slightly undermines callability.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives such as web-fetch or browser-url-ok, nor does it state under which conditions to choose this tool over a sibling.

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