Language uk

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful behavior — that no browser is launched — but fails to explain what the check actually performs (network request vs. static validation), what it returns, or side effects. For an annotation-less tool this is thin but not misleading.

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 with zero waste. The primary action and the critical behavioral caveat are front-loaded. This is an appropriately concise definition.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain how the diverse parameters relate to the check, what the tool returns, or the exact semantics of 'can be opened.' An agent calling this correctly would need substantially more information.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema. Notably, several params (city, zone, json, path, query) appear unrelated to a URL-openability check, and the description doesn't reconcile this mismatch, though the schema descriptions themselves carry the load.

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

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

The description states a clear verb-resource pair ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a key disambiguator against the sibling playwright-url-ok with 'No browser is launched.' It doesn't fully define what 'opened' means (HTTP reachability? format validity?), but the core purpose is understandable and differentiates from the most similar sibling.

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

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

The phrase 'No browser is launched' implicitly signals when NOT to use this tool (when a real browser render is needed, use playwright-url-ok instead). However, it never names alternatives or clarifies when to prefer this over fetch-status, web-fetch, or normalize-url. Guidance is implied, not explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Expression discarded,' which is confusing and contradictory to 'Evaluate.' It does not explain side effects, return values, or why the parameters are unrelated. There is no useful behavioral disclosure.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of uselessness. It does not front-load any actionable information and fails to earn its place by adding value.

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 required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, how to call it correctly, or what the response will contain.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It claims the tool evaluates arithmetic, but none of the parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) are arithmetic expressions. The description actively misleads rather than clarifies parameter usage.

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 ('Evaluate') and a resource ('a+b style arithmetic'), but it completely mismatches the input schema, which contains parameters like ref, url, city, etc. There is no arithmetic expression parameter, so the purpose is misleading. It also does not distinguish from siblings like citation or normalize-url.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 27 sibling tools. The description gives no context for the intended use case, and the parameter list offers no clue, so an agent cannot decide when to invoke it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the path is discarded, which is a behavioral trait, but it does not mention whether the tool performs any validation, what the output format is, whether it makes network requests, or if it has side effects. For a parse/check tool, this is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short phrases with zero fluff. The core action and the key constraint (path discarded) are front-loaded. 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it validates or extracts, or how to interpret the result. The many irrelevant parameters are not addressed, and an agent has no way to know what to do with the output. This is inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.

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

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

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the 'url' parameter is specifically a Figma file URL, which helps clarify its role. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the other parameters are ignored, even though the schema hints at this via 'discarded' phrases. Overall, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a clear verb ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), and even notes that the path is discarded, which distinguishes it from generic URL tools. However, it doesn't specify what 'parse' returns (e.g., a boolean, a normalized form, extracted fields), so the purpose is somewhat ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of sibling URL tools like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or fetch-status. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions, 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions reliance on Open-Meteo, implying an external call, but does not address side effects, rate limits, parameter discard behavior, or output format. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it omits essential details, making it more under-specified than properly 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain how to supply the place, what the returned coordinates look like, or how to interpret the many parameters. An agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly based on this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, and it fails to clarify which of the 9 parameters is the 'place' input. It does not harm, but it also does not enhance 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 a clear function: returning latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo. It names a specific verb and resource, but it does not specify which input parameter identifies the place, given the schema contains many unrelated fields (e.g., ref, url, json, path). This ambiguity prevents a perfect score.

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 like weather-hint or timezone. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or which sibling tools to prefer in specific contexts.

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 says 'Key discarded,' which is unclear and does not explain side effects, safety, read-only nature, or what the tool does with the input beyond a vague discard note. No information about permissions, reversibility, or output is given.

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, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not earn its place because it omits essential information about which parameter to use and what the check entails. The one-sentence format is not a virtue when it leaves critical gaps.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to specify the input parameter, the expected format of a Jira key, the return value, or any usage context. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no value in mapping parameters. It never states which parameter holds the Jira key; schema descriptions mention 'Git ref name,' 'URL,' etc., none of which clearly align with a Jira key. The description fails to compensate for the ambiguity and may even mislead by not clarifying the intended parameter.

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

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

The description states the action (check) and resource (Jira issue key shape), so it is not a tautology. However, it is vague about which of the nine parameters holds the key and does not differentiate from sibling shape-checking tools like github-repo-shape or figma-url-shape. The phrase 'Key discarded' hints at behavior but not the 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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-checkers (domain-shape, figma-url-shape, github-repo-shape, etc.). No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent without any selection criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Body discarded', which is thin; it does not disclose what the HTTP status means, how errors surface, whether the status is derived from the url parameter, or how the other seven unrelated parameters factor in. The description is also inconsistent with its parameters, which undermines any behavioral claim it makes.

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 compact at two sentences, which is good, but it is not usefully structured or front-loaded — the only behavioral note 'Body discarded' is trivial, and the key information about what the tool does is vague and internally inconsistent.

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, 0 required, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is grossly insufficient. It does not say which parameter is primary, what the output looks like, or how the unrelated parameters are used. An agent has no way to correctly select or invoke this tool based 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever and, worse, its 'public library docs URL' framing directly contradicts the diverse parameter set (city, feed, json, zone, query). The parameters are individually documented in the schema but their relationship to the tool's stated purpose is inexplicable, and the description does nothing to reconcile this.

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 and resource ('HTTP status for a public library docs URL') but is fundamentally confusing: the parameter schema describes weather hints, timezones, RSS feeds, JSON validation, and file paths — none of which relate to 'public library docs URL'. The name 'lib-docs-hint' adds further ambiguity, and the description fails to align with what the parameters imply the tool actually does.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 27 siblings such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or browser-url-ok. No context, no exclusions, no alternatives are 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 adds 'Values discarded' and 'JSON object' context, but fails to explain why the tool accepts nine unrelated string parameters or what happens to them, and it doesn't disclose return format or failure behavior. The schema hints these inputs are 'discarded,' which conflicts with the described purpose of counting keys, leaving the actual behavior ambiguous.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing usage and parameter guidance.

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 annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It never specifies which parameter carries the JSON, what the other eight parameters do, or what the count result looks like. An agent cannot confidently map inputs to the described 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no value about how any parameter relates to the counting operation. The schema's own descriptions ('discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access') suggest most inputs are unused, and the description fails to clarify which parameter is the JSON object to count, creating confusion rather than resolving it.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Count keys in a JSON object') and distinguishes itself from length-checking siblings like search-query-len. However, the 9 input parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, zone, query) appear entirely unrelated to counting keys in a JSON object, and no parameter clearly holds the JSON to inspect, which muddies what the tool actually operates on.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never references validate-json, search-query-len, or any sibling, nor does it state conditions that should route an agent here. The intended use case is left entirely to inference.

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 'No browser is launched' and some parameter descriptions mention 'discarded' or 'no disk access', but with no annotations the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects and behavior. It does not clarify whether the tool makes network requests, whether it is side-effect free, what it returns, or how failures are reported.

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 contains no fluff; the two sentences are easy to read. It is concise, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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

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

With nine optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema or annotations, the description is far too incomplete for an agent to know how to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain which parameters are relevant, what the expected result format is, or how to interpret the response.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has at least a one-line semantic description. However, the tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and the individual parameter descriptions seem disconnected from the stated URL-opening 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 it checks whether a URL can be opened, but this mostly restates the tool name and is ambiguous about what 'can be opened' means or what result is produced. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or web-fetch, and the input schema's nine unrelated optional parameters further muddy the intended purpose.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as browser-url-ok, normalize-url, fetch-status, or web-fetch. The description provides no usage context, no conditions, and no examples.

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 full responsibility. It states 'Title discarded after the call,' implying a stateless operation, but fails to clarify what 'title' refers to since there is no 'title' parameter in the schema. It also does not disclose network usage, error behavior, or how the many unrelated parameters are handled, which is a significant 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 a single short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It does not convey the necessary context for a tool with nine optional parameters and no annotations. The brevity here is under-specification, not efficient 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 annotations, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between the parameters and the title check, nor does it describe return values, side effects, or typical use cases. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the provided description.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, each parameter's description is generic and unrelated to the tool's purpose (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint' has nothing to do with Wikipedia). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning and does not compensate for the misleading schema. The parameters appear to be placeholders rather than meaningful inputs for title checking.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists') with a clear resource (Wikipedia title). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings by its focus on Wikipedia title existence. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'browser-url-ok' or 'normalize-url', and the schema's unrelated parameters introduce confusion.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent has no indication of when this tool is preferred over siblings like 'wiki' or 'url-ok' tools.

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