Language tk

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Task text discarded,' which is a useful but narrow disclosure. It does not mention return structure of connection methods, external network calls, authentication/rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is only two sentences and every sentence is meaningful. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a behavioral note without redundancy or filler, making it efficient.

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

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

No annotations, no output schema, but 9 optional parameters. The description gives task examples but doesn't specify which parameter(s) map to which task (weather -> city?, search -> query?, scrape -> url?). Return format could include connection methods in what shape? Not clarified. Therefore, the definition is not complete for reliable use.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter definitions, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'task text discarded' provides cross-parameter context that parameter values are not persisted. However, with 9 optional parameters and no description of which parameter corresponds to a given task category, the agent still needs richer mapping to use the tool correctly.

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

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

The description states the tool finds a public pay-per-call tool gateway for specific task categories (weather, search, scrape, voice) and returns connection methods. This is a clear verb+resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools that also handle weather or search (e.g., weather-hint, 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when a public pay-per-call gateway is needed, for tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice) but provides no explicit 'when not to use' guidance or alternative tool comparisons. The usage context is present but shallow.

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 for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that no browser is launched, but does not explain what 'check whether a URL can be opened' actually entails—whether it performs a network request, validates format only, or has side effects. The parameter descriptions hint at checks and discards, but the central behavior remains opaque.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose and the key exception clearly, achieving maximal efficiency.

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, of which the description addresses only the URL concept. It does not explain the role of other parameters like ref, city, feed, or path, leaving an agent uncertain about what inputs are appropriate. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope and return value.

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 tool description adds no information beyond the schema; it does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they interplay. The schema descriptions already provide per-parameter detail, so the description adds minimal value here.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool checks whether a URL can be opened, using a specific verb and resource. It also adds the negative constraint 'No browser is launched', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like playwright-url-ok. This is precise and unambiguous.

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

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a use case (URL check without launching a browser) but never names sibling tools or conditions for choosing it over playwright-url-ok, fetch-status, or normalize-url. No exclusions or preferred scenarios are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Expression discarded,' which is cryptic and unsupported by the schema. It does not disclose what happens to the nine parameters, whether there is a return value, or any side effects.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded with the intended action, but the second sentence, 'Expression discarded,' is a cryptic fragment that raises more questions than it answers. It is concise but not well structured.

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, this description is far too sparse. It omits return behavior, parameter selection, and any relationship to the many sibling tools, leaving an agent unable 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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has its own description, the tool description does not connect any parameter to the stated arithmetic purpose. The phrase 'a+b style arithmetic' implies an expression parameter that does not exist, so the description adds confusion rather than meaning.

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

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

The description names a specific action ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic'), but the input schema contains no arithmetic expression parameter—instead it lists nine unrelated optional strings such as ref, url, city, and feed. This makes the tool's actual purpose unclear and does not distinguish it from sibling tools.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use calc-eval versus any sibling tool. The arithmetic claim is misleading because none of the schema parameters can carry an expression, so an agent cannot act on the implied use case.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that page content is not stored, which is useful, but it does not mention network access, auth, rate limits, or the fact that most parameters are explicitly ignored. This is minimal behavior disclosure for a tool with a side-effect-free-sounding 'return' operation.

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 just two short, front-loaded sentences: the primary action and the important behavioral guarantee about page content. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the schema, making it appropriately concise and easy to scan.

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 only covers the main action and one privacy-related detail. It lacks guidance on which parameter actually supplies the URL, ignores the other params, and offers no backstop for understanding the return format. Given the tool's complexity, this is insufficient contextual support.

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 phrase 'for a URL', which hints at the url parameter, but it does not detail which parameter drives the action or how other inputs relate to the behavior beyond the schema's own discarded-axis notes. No negative value added, so the baseline holds.

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 specifies a clear action and output ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL') which identifies its core purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or recommended contexts. The only implicit hint is the URL focus, but the agent is left to compare against siblings without explicit direction.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description has the full burden. 'No identifiers are retained' is a real behavioral disclosure that adds light privacy and processing semantics, supplementing the schema's 'discarded' hints. However it remains silent about side effects, whether the request is merely inspected, and what the response contains.

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 are front-loaded and waste no words: purpose first, privacy note second. It is concise to the point of being terse, but under the 10% weight, the structure itself earns credit.

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, requiredless tool with no output schema and no annotations needs much more than this. The description does not explain how inputs are classified, what result is returned, or how the parameters combine. This is an inadequate specification for an agent to reason about invocation confidently.

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% (9/9 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, and its 'No identifiers are retained' line just restates what schema descriptions already imply for several 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 phrase 'Show how this request is classified' uses a verb but the object is vague and no resource is named. It does not distinguish the tool from its many specific siblings like validate-json or fetch-browser-status, or even explain how it relates to its name. It is more than a bare tautology but still too fuzzy to select reliably.

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 when/when-not/alternatives. With 28 sibling tools, no mention of which case this dispatch/classification tool should be preferred over a dedicated validator leaves an agent guessing. There is no guidance to exclude or include.

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 the tool avoids WHOIS/ownership data, which is useful, but it does not explain how it handles the many other input parameters (ref, url, json, path, etc.) or what the output looks like. The behavior for non-hostname inputs is completely unknown.

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 and is technically concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful, so it does not earn credit for effective conciseness.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema), the description is gravely incomplete. It does not explain what 'labels' means, how the output is structured, or how to select the correct input among many. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly based solely on the 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?

Although the schema descriptions cover all parameters (100%), the tool description does not clarify which parameters are actually relevant to the stated purpose. It adds no insight beyond the schema, and given the large number of seemingly unrelated parameters (city, feed, zone), an agent could be misled into thinking all are valid inputs for the hostname splitting operation.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('split a hostname into labels') and the resource (hostname), but it does not specify which of the 9 input parameters should be used to provide the hostname. This ambiguity makes it difficult for an agent to know how to call the tool correctly. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any trade-offs or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer that it is appropriate for any hostname-related task, which may be incorrect.

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 available, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the HTTP method (HEAD) and that only status is returned, which implies a lightweight, read-only operation. However, it never mentions timeouts, redirects, auth requirements, or that only the URL parameter is used—behaviors that would matter for an HTTP network call.

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

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

A single, front-loaded action sentence with zero fluff. Every word earns its place; the description is compact and immediately 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?

The description mentions only HEAD-ing a URL, yet the schema lists 9 different parameters (city, json, zone, etc.) with hints that they are validation-only. It is unclear how these parameters relate to the HEAD action or whether other parameters can drive the tool. The description is too sparse for the complexity implied by the schema.

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 tool-level description adds no parameter-specific meaning. All parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate; baseline 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 action—'HEAD a public URL'—and explicitly limits the output to 'status only', which distinguishes it from content-fetching siblings. However, it names no sibling directly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 indication of when to prefer this tool over alternatives like web-fetch or browser-url-ok. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or exclusion of related operations.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only says 'Path discarded.' It does not disclose that the tool appears to be a shape check rather than a fetch, what side effects exist, or what the return value is. The schema hints at discard behavior for several params, but the description itself is nearly silent.

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

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

The description is extremely short with no wasted words, and the main action is front-loaded. However, the second sentence is cryptic and omits essential context, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain which parameter to pass, what the tool returns, or why unrelated parameters exist, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it.

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 parameter, earning a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not indicate that 'url' is the relevant field for a Figma URL, leaving the mapping between the stated purpose and the schema implicit.

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

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL'), but the second sentence 'Path discarded' is ambiguous and the input schema exposes nine unrelated optional parameters (ref, city, feed, json, zone, query) with no Figma-specific field. This mismatch makes the tool's actual purpose unclear despite the specific phrasing.

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 siblings like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or github-repo-shape. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or context, so an agent has no basis for selecting this tool over 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?

With no annotations, the description and implementation notes carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'No disk access' is a useful boundary that tells the agent the tool will not actually touch files, but it does not explain what a 'safe' path means, whether the check is syntactic only, what it returns, or whether it has any other side effects. This is minimal but not completely absent.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded, with no filler: it states the core action first and then adds the most important behavioral boundary. It is concise, but it is concise at the expense of missing useful usage and context 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, 0 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description has to explain how the tool is invoked and what should be passed. It does not explain how the remaining params relate to the path check, what a useful call would contain, or how results are reported. This leaves the agent unable to confidently use it.

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 describes all 9 parameters. The description itself adds little parameter-level meaning; it only reinforces the path check and leaves connections among the other optional parameters unexplained. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe. No disk access.' This clearly communicates that the tool performs a static, non-filesystem path safety check. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling URL-shape tools like browser-url-ok or playwright-url-ok, but the path focus is reasonably clear.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool is a better alternative. The description does not mention prerequites, expected input modes, or any conditions such as 'use this instead of a filesystem-access tool.' This leaves the agent to infer context on its own.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does not disclose external network calls, response format, side effects, or limits; 'via Open-Meteo' merely hints at an external dependency without explaining behavior or outcomes.

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 a single line with no filler and the result is front-loaded. It is efficiently short, though the brevity hides the significant gaps in invocation and behavior rather than adding useful completion.

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

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

A 9-parameter tool with no required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema requires a much clearer rationale. The description does not say which parameter to populate, how to get coordinates, what response shape it returns, or how to disambiguate among the unrelated-looking fields. This is essentially a guess for an AI agent.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions are present but oddly generic and do not map a specific parameter to the 'place' needed by this tool. The description itself adds no parameter-level 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 says the output is latitude and longitude for a place, using Open-Meteo, which distinguishes it from weather or timezone siblings. However, it states no verb, and it does not identify which of the nine optional parameters is the 'place', leaving the actual invocation ambiguous.

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

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

There is no when/when-not guidance and no alternative compared. The phrase 'for a place' only implies a geocoding use case, but it does not say when to choose this over weather-hint, timezone, or other hint tools, nor what conditions make geo-hint appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Parse owner and repo' and does not explain return format, failure behavior, whether network access occurs, or how the tool handles non-GitHub or malformed URLs. The schema's references to values being 'discarded after the shape check' suggest more complex behavior than the description reveals.

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 one tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it is so terse that it omits essential operational details, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 a 9-parameter schema with zero required parameters and no output schema or annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not say which parameter carries the GitHub URL, what the parsed owner/repo result looks like, or whether the other described inputs are ignored or rejected.

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 GitHub-specific meaning of the URL, but it does not identify which of the 9 optional parameters should be used, why most parameters are irrelevant, or that additionalProperties false prevents passing owner/repo as direct fields. This leaves real ambiguity for parameter selection.

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

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

The description names a specific verb ('Parse') and a specific resource ('owner and repo') from a 'GitHub URL', which clearly distinguishes this from sibling shape tools like jira-key-shape, figma-url-shape, and domain-shape. Even without additional context, an agent can tell what operation this tool performs and on what input.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or other shape checkers. The description implies usage only via the phrase 'GitHub URL', but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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 behavioral burden, and 'Titles are discarded' is a useful behavioral disclosure that prevents the agent from expecting a list of story titles. However, it does not describe whether a network call is made, what the return shape is beyond a count, or what happens when the remote front page is unavailable, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation 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, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place: the purpose comes first and the behavior comes second. It is not longer than it needs to be, though a usage sentence would improve it.

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 is simple in concept, but it has nine optional parameters that are not clearly tied to the description, zero required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. An agent cannot infer whether it should pass a feed URL, a query, or nothing, and the description does not resolve that ambiguity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without in-description parameter help. The description itself adds little parameter meaning: it never tells the agent which of the nine optional params relates to the Hacker News source, why feed/url/query/path are present, or whether calling with an empty object is the intended invocation.

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 clear action ('Count') and a clear resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), so an agent can tell this tool returns a count rather than a fetch. It also adds a useful scoping note: titles are discarded. It misses the fifth point only because it does not position itself against related sibling tools like 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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Because siblings such as web-fetch and fetch-status could conceivably also reach Hacker News content, the agent is left to infer the intended use from the one-line purpose.

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

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states a noun-phrase resource and does not say what a call returns, whether it validates zone names, or whether it has any side effects.

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

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

The text is short and easy to skim, but it is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence and omits essential operational details. The brevity is concise but not sufficiently informative.

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 explain what a call returns or how the parameters relate to the tool. An agent can guess that 'zone' is relevant, but the other eight optional parameters remain unexplained and confusing.

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 schema already documents each parameter, including 'zone' as an IANA timezone name. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description identifies the resource ('common IANA timezone names') and hints at the clock/timezone domain, so it is not a pure restatement of the name. However, it lacks a verb or action such as list, return, or validate, and it does not clearly differentiate the tool from siblings like timezone and utc-time.

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 only usage hint is the phrase 'for clock calls'; there is no explanation of when to prefer this tool over timezone or utc-time, and no exclusions or alternatives are named. A selector would have to infer the intended use from the 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the 'group counts only' output limitation, but it fails to disclose that the vast majority of its parameters are silently discarded after a shape check — behavior visible only by reading each parameter's description. Given an operation that fetches external resources, it also omits error behavior and what happens when robots.txt is missing or unreachable.

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

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

A single efficient sentence with the output limitation front-loaded; no wasted words. It is appropriately short, though the brevity leaves major gaps that score low under other dimensions.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain which parameter selects the target robots.txt, what 'group counts' means precisely, what happens to the eight discarded parameters, or expected return/error behavior. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly with the information given.

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 descriptions actively mislead: parameters like ref, city, zone, json, and query all say they are 'discarded after the shape check', describing behavior that belongs to a completely different tool family (shape checks), not robots.txt fetching. Critically, no parameter description maps to the tool's stated purpose — 'url' says 'normalize or cite' and 'host' says 'public hostname', neither of which tells an agent which parameter supplies the robots.txt source. The description adds no clarifying meaning and fails to compensate for this mismatch.

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+resource: 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.' This is clear on its face and the 'group counts only' qualifier usefully scopes the output. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like web-fetch or fetch-status, and — more importantly — the stated purpose is not supported by the parameter list, which contains no parameter that clearly identifies which robots.txt to 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions siblings (web-fetch, fetch-status, browser-url-ok, domain-shape, etc.), provides no when-to-use / when-not-to-use conditions, and no prerequisites. An agent has no basis to select this over the other fetching/shape tools.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Key discarded.' That hints at no persistence, yet does not explain the expected response, errors, network behavior, or side effects. It also never maps the discarded key to any parameter in the schema.

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

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

The text is short and front-loaded; it states an intended action in two sentences without fluff. It loses the top score because brevity comes at the cost of context, especially given 9 parameters and no output schema.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain which parameter to populate, what kind of Jira key shape is matched, what the tool returns, or what 'discarded' means operationally. The context provided is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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

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

Schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. However, the description adds little semantic mapping: there is no parameter named 'key' or 'issue_key' in the input schema, and most schema descriptions refer to unrelated concerns such as URLs, paths, timezone, cities, and JSON; an agent cannot tell which parameter is the key to check.

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

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

The description names a specific action and resource: checking a Jira issue key's shape, which is clear and helps distinguish it from sibling shape-checkers such as domain-shape or github-repo-shape. It stops short of a top score because it says nothing about which input parameter is the key and introduces the puzzling phrase 'Key discarded' without explaining the Jira key relationship.

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, when not to use it, or what to do with the result. The intended use is only implicit in the verb phrase 'Check a Jira issue key shape'; there are no prerequisites or alternative relationships mentioned.

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, what it returns, what it validates, whether it has side effects, or how errors are handled. This is a major transparency 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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single cryptic sentence contributes no actionable information about invocation, behavior, or output.

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

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

With nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what input qualifies, what a valid response looks like, or what the tool does operationally, so an agent cannot confidently 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 the baseline is neutral even without parameter details in the tool description. However, the description never connects the ISO 639 language-tag behavior to any of the nine string parameters, leaving it unclear which property an agent should populate.

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 tk,' with no verb or explicit action. An agent cannot tell whether the tool validates, returns, normalizes, or cites a language tag, and the text mostly restates the tool name without adding operational meaning.

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 usage guidance is provided. There are no conditions, prerequisites, exclusions, or references to the many sibling tools, so an agent has no way to know when this tool is the correct choice versus a related shape-check or hint tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'HTTP status' and 'Body discarded,' but gives no information about side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens with the numerous other parameters. The behavior beyond the single sentence is entirely opaque.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than economical. It omits essential context about the tool's scope and parameter handling, so brevity here is a deficiency, not a virtue.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a terse description, the definition is grossly incomplete. It does not explain primary use cases, parameter selection logic, or expected outcomes, leaving an agent with no practical guidance for 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has its own schema documentation. The description adds no additional semantics about how parameters relate to the tool's purpose; it does not mention any parameter or clarify which are used for the HTTP status check. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, but the tool description fails to tie parameters to the stated 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 states a specific action ('HTTP status for a public library docs URL'), but the tool name and the 9 unrelated parameters (e.g., city, json, zone) suggest a broader or different purpose. It does not clarify how these parameters relate to the stated purpose, making the tool's actual function ambiguous and poorly differentiated from siblings like 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternatives (fetch-status, normalize-url, web-fetch, etc.). No conditions, exclusions, or examples are provided. An agent would have to guess which tool to call for a given task.

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?

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself, but it only says 'Values discarded.' It does not mention the return format, side effects, or how the JSON is extracted from the input. The lack of any statement about what happens to the key count or whether this is read-only leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action first. Two short sentences avoid unwanted words, but the brevity leaves out crucial information about which parameter to use, so it is not maximally effective.

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

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

Given the complexity of a 9-string-parameter schema and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is under-specified. It fails to connect the JSON object to a concrete parameter and does not explain the expected input is a pointer to one of the params. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly.

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

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description merely repeats 'Values discarded,' which the schema already conveys indirectly through per-parameter notes like 'discarded after the check.' No additional semantic meaning is added to help agent decide which parameters to provide.

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

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

The description states a verb (count) and resource (keys in a JSON object), but it never clarifies which input property holds that JSON object. The schema has a `json` parameter, yet the presence of eight other optional parameters with domain-specific descriptions makes the intended target ambiguous. This is more specific than a tautology but not enough to confidently select the tool over siblings as a key-counting utility.

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 over siblings such as validate-json or shape checks, nor any exclusions or context hints. The description doesn't say if this is the right tool for counting keys versus some other aggregation, 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the transformation (drops query/fragment) and does not disclose side effects (for example, whether the URL is fetched or processed locally), error behavior for invalid URLs, or that the other eight parameters are ignored before the call.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler, and the main outcome is front-loaded. Every word contributes to the call semantics.

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

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

With no output schema, the text should explain the returned shape more fully, but it only gives the names of fields (origin, host, path). It also neither advertises that the non-url parameters are ignored nor clarifies the return format or invalid-input handling, so it is complete enough for basic call but not fully self-contained.

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% and every parameter has its own description, so the tool description adds little to parameter semantics. It does not clarify which parameter is the primary URL input beyond what the schema already says, so baseline 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 gives a specific verb and result: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and states the drop-query/fragment behavior. This is clear about the core resource and differentiates it from fetching/status tools, though it does not explicitly name or exclude any sibling tool.

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

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

The text implies the tool should be used when you need origin/host/path without query/fragment, but it provides no alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent gets the implied use case but not enough to rule out related URL tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful trait — 'No browser is launched' — but does not disclose whether network access occurs, what side effects may exist, or what the note 'discarded after the check' in the schema parameters means globally. This is minimal behavioral coverage for a tool named playwright-url-ok.

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 one sentence and both parts earn their place. However, it is under-specified for a 9-parameter tool with no annotations; brevity is achieved by omitting important context rather than being efficiently structured.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description that only addresses URL checking is incomplete. The schema parameter descriptions provide some context, but the overall function and how the unrelated parameters (city, json, path, zone, query) interact with 'URL can be opened' remains unexplained.

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 a small amount of meaning for the primary parameter by framing it as 'whether a URL can be opened,' but it says nothing about the other 8 parameters (ref, city, json, path, zone, etc.) beyond what the schema already documents. It does not fully compensate for the complexity of having 9 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 and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' It also helps differentiate from the sibling 'browser-url-ok' by adding 'No browser is launched.' However, it does not explicitly compare against other relevant siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, and 'can be opened' leaves some ambiguity about whether this is a syntax check or a reachability check.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of its many siblings (browser-url-ok, fetch-status, web-fetch, etc.). No conditions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use instructions are given. For a tool with 9 heterogeneous parameters, this is a clear gap.

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 disclose side effects and operational behavior, but it only repeats 'Query discarded,' which is already stated in the schema. It does not clarify whether any network/IO happens, whether it is purely local, what it returns, or whether other parameters are simply ignored. This repeats schema information instead of adding behavioral context.

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, comprising two short sentences that deliver the core purpose and one key discard behavior without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, but the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., integer character count), whether other parameters should be ignored, or the practical intent of the count. This leaves the agent uncertain about call expectations and return value, making the description inadequate for full context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for all parameters, so the description is not required to list or re-explain them. However, the description does not explicitly indicate which parameter is the 'search query' – though the schema's 'query' entry clarifies that. The description adds little beyond the existing schema, but baseline for high coverage is 3.

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

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

The description uses a clear, specific verb ('Count') and a resource ('search query'), which matches the tool name 'search-query-len' and distinguishes it from sibling shape/format checkers. It is not a tautology and states the core function in a single sentence.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as lang-tk (token counting) or memory-key-count. There is no mention of suitable contexts, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name 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?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'short catalog' and gives no indication of validation, normalization, discarding inputs, or what happens on success/failure. The schema hints at these behaviors through parameter descriptions, but the description itself adds nothing behavioral.

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 under-specifies the tool's functionality to the point of being unhelpful. It does not front-load any actionable details beyond a vague catalog claim, and the mismatch with the schema makes it misleading rather than efficient.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool actually does with the inputs, what output it produces, or any side effects. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly based on the provided description alone.

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

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

The schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters and each is fairly explanatory (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds no parameter-specific info, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which implies a reference tool, but the schema lists a heterogeneous set of parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) that are each described as being discarded after a shape check or similar. This is a misleading mismatch between description and schema, so an agent could easily pick the wrong tool. It does not specify a clear verb or resource that matches the schema's behavior.

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. The description does not mention any context, exclusions, or relational info to sibling tools. An agent has no basis to decide whether this is the right tool for a given task.

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 says 'Prompt discarded,' hinting that the input prompt is ignored, but it does not disclose that all parameters are effectively discarded after shape validation (as suggested by the schema descriptions). With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral clarity, and it falls short by not explaining what happens to parameters or what the 'three-step thinking template' actually contains.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for such a simple action.

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

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

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description offers only a bare statement without any context. It does not explain why parameters exist, what the thinking template is, or what the tool does with the inputs. This is wholly inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's role, especially considering the schema's 'discarded' hints are not reflected in the 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 the schema fully describes each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it only mentions 'Prompt discarded,' which is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does 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 clear action: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'domain-shape' or 'validate-json' which serve different purposes. However, it does not explain why the tool accepts 9 parameters, which leaves some ambiguity about the actual function.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, intended scenarios, or exclusions. Given the large sibling list, an agent cannot determine when to invoke this tool based on 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the function, omitting what happens with invalid zones, any network dependence, or the return format. It also fails to clarify that the many unrelated parameters in the schema (ref, url, city, etc.) are likely ignored, leaving the agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the core function immediately and is appropriately concise for the simple action.

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 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to identify which parameter is essential, how to handle the noise parameters, or what the response looks like. It also doesn't position itself against related siblings, leaving an agent under-informed.

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 clear description. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond implying zone is the relevant one, and it does not help the agent understand that the other eight parameters are unrelated or should be omitted. It meets the baseline but doesn't add value.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Current time') and a clear resource ('named IANA timezone'), which communicates exactly what the tool does. It is distinguishable from siblings like utc-time and iana-zones by the explicit focus on named timezones, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like utc-time for UTC or iana-zones for listing zones. The description is a one-liner with no context on selection criteria or exclusions.

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 burden. It only states the output and omits that all nine parameters are discarded, whether any network/system call occurs, and the response format. The schema reveals the discard behavior, but the description itself does not disclose 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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. However, for a tool with nine schema properties, this terseness veers toward under-specification, omitting the fact that the parameters are irrelevant to the result.

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

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

With no output schema, no annotations, and a complex parameter list, a one-sentence description cannot contextualize the tool. An agent cannot tell what the returned timestamp looks like, whether parameters affect it, or how this relates to sibling timezone tools.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameters and does not hint that inputs are ignored, but the schema already documents each parameter's fate. This is neither a help nor a harm.

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

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

The description states the tool returns the current UTC timestamp, which is a specific, identifiable output. It is more specific than the tool name, but it lacks a verb and does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling 'timezone' tool.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like timezone or iana-zones. It neither states use cases nor exclusions, leaving an agent to infer from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that 'The body is discarded,' which indicates no persistence, but it does not mention any other side effects, permissions, or limitations. The schema descriptions cover some behaviors (e.g., 'no disk access'), but the tool description itself is nearly silent on how the tool behaves or what side effects it has.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it is so terse that it omits crucial details, making it underspecified rather than efficiently informative. It earns a middle score for brevity but loses points for 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?

With 9 optional parameters and no required fields, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke the tool, what return value to expect (no output schema exists), or how to select the correct parameter for JSON validation. The description's ambiguity around 'body' and its silence on the other parameters leave an agent without enough context to use the tool correctly.

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

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

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptive text for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add useful parameter semantics; instead, the term 'body' is ambiguous and not mapped to any schema parameter. It does not clarify which parameter represents the JSON to validate, nor does it explain how multiple parameters should be handled.

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 ('Check whether a body is valid JSON'), which gives a basic sense of purpose. However, it is ambiguous about what 'body' refers to and does not differentiate this from the many sibling shape-check tools. The presence of 9 unrelated parameters (url, city, zone, etc.) suggests the tool may have broader validation scope, which the description fails to mention.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any scenario, exclusions, or related tools. An agent is left to infer the usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the diversity of sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the data source (Open-Meteo) but does not state that the operation is read-only, that non-city parameters are discarded, what the response looks like, or any error/rate-limit behavior. The schema descriptions hint at 'discarded after the shape check' behavior, but the description itself is silent.

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 communicates the core function immediately. However, it is so terse that it omits important scope caveats, though conciseness itself is not the issue.

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, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain which parameter to use, what happens with the others, what the return value is, or how the Open-Meteo call behaves. An agent cannot confidently invoke 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 schema already documents all nine parameters. The description adds only the mention of 'city,' reinforcing the primary parameter, but it does not explain the role of the other eight parameters or warn that they are irrelevant to the weather use case. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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

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

The description states a specific function – returning current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo – which is clear in isolation. However, the input schema exposes eight additional parameters (ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with no explanation of how they relate to weather, and the description does not clarify that only 'city' is relevant. This makes the tool's actual scope ambiguous and fails to differentiate it from sibling hint tools like geo-hint.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as geo-hint or timezone. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a valid city name), nor does it state that other parameters are ignored. An agent must infer the intended use case solely from the tool 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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the body is discarded and the status/type are returned, but it does not mention that other parameters (city, feed, json, zone, etc.) are also 'discarded' as per the schema. This creates a mismatch: the description suggests only URL-related behavior, while the broad parameter list implies additional side effects or validation. The absence of error-handling, timeout, redirect, or auth details is a gap, but the contradictory implication about other parameters is a more serious transparency issue.

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 immediately states the core purpose and the key behavioral trait (body discard). Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimally concise.

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 output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, this description is incomplete. It does not explain why there are so many seemingly unrelated parameters, nor what the exact return structure is beyond 'status and content type' (no JSON shape). It also lacks routing guidance among a large family of fetch/check tools. An agent would have to inspect all parameter descriptions and possibly test to fully understand the tool's actual behavior.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each of the 9 parameters already has a descriptive text in the schema. The tool description adds only the notion of 'public URL' which slightly enhances the URL parameter, but it does not clarify the role of the other parameters (which are described as discarded). Given the schema carries the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the brief description does not meaningfully add to the parameter semantics.

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

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

The description states exactly what the tool does: fetch a URL and return HTTP status and content type, with the body discarded. It is a specific verb-resource combination that clearly separates it from tools that return full content (like browser-url-ok or playwright-url-ok). The explicit 'Body discarded' resolves ambiguity immediately.

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 notes 'public URL' which implies a use case, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or browser-url-ok. No direct comparison or exclusion is given, so the agent must infer that this is a lightweight status check rather than a full fetch or validation tool.

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

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

The only behavioral note, 'Title discarded after the call,' references a non-existent 'title' parameter and adds no useful context. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of describing side effects, permissions, or return behavior, but it offers none beyond this vague and irrelevant discard statement.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is underspecified and misleading. It fails to communicate the tool's actual functionality or how to use its parameters, making the brevity a liability rather than a strength.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It leaves the agent unable to determine what input to provide, what the tool returns, or how it differs from sibling validators, making it impossible to use correctly.

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

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

Though the schema descriptions cover all parameters, they are generic ('Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL', etc.) and repeatedly state 'discarded after the check.' The description does not explain how any of these nine parameters relate to checking a Wikipedia title, so it provides no added semantic value and actually conflicts with 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 states a specific action ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists') but the input schema contains no title parameter—only generic fields like ref, url, city, and feed. This mismatch makes the actual purpose ambiguous and misleading, as the agent cannot determine which parameter corresponds to the Wikipedia title.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling check tools (browser-url-ok, fetch-status, etc.). The description does not specify the intended input type, context, or any conditions that would favor this tool over alternatives.

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