Language uz

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'Task text discarded' and 'Returns connection methods,' but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, failure modes, network usage, or what a 'connection method' concretely contains. The safety profile is unclear.

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 tight and front-loaded: two short sentences plus a quick discard note. Every clause adds context, and there is little pruning to remove; it could add usage or output detail without becoming bloated.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It says the tool 'returns connection methods' but does not describe the response shape, how to interpret the gateway, or how to choose among parameters when making a request. For a fairly complex meta-tool, this leaves an agent with unresolved questions.

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 individual parameter descriptions already carry most of the semantic weight. The description adds a high-level task framing but does not map task categories like weather or search to the relevant parameters, and does not clarify how the often-discarded parameters should be supplied.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('Find'), a specific resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway'), and example tasks. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from more specific sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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

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

The phrase 'for a task such as weather, search, scrape, or voice' implies when the tool is appropriate, but the description provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent must infer how this tool relates to siblings like weather-hint or fetch-status.

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 'No browser is launched' but does not explain what the check actually does (e.g., network request, validation), what happens to the other parameters (they are described as discarded in the schema), or whether there are side effects. This is a significant omission for a tool with 9 optional parameters.

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

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

The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. It omits necessary details about the URL input and the purpose of sibling parameters, so brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a highly ambiguous purpose, this description is far from complete. It does not explain how the tool works, which parameters are required or relevant, what the return value indicates, or how it relates to siblings beyond the 'no browser' hint. An agent would have no confidence in calling this tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no clarity about which parameter is the URL to check and does not resolve contradictions: the 'url' parameter is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' in the schema, not 'to check'. The description also fails to explain why many parameters are present if they are discarded, leaving the agent confused about parameter relevance.

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 ('Check') and resource ('whether a URL can be opened'), and the clause 'No browser is launched' distinguishes it from sibling tools like playwright-url-ok. However, it does not clarify which parameter is the URL or what 'can be opened' means (e.g., HTTP status, DNS, or format check), so it is not fully 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 only usage hint is 'No browser is launched', which implies a lightweight check compared to browser-based tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, state when to use this tool over them, or provide any exclusion conditions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Expression discarded,' which is cryptic and fails to explain what the tool does with any of the schema parameters, what side effects occur, or what output to expect. The safety and action profile of the tool is completely 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 extremely short (single sentence) but under-specifies the tool's function. It is not appropriately sized; it sacrifices necessary information for brevity and leaves the agent confused about the tool's capabilities given the mismatched 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does nothing to explain how parameters are used, what the tool returns, or how it integrates with sibling validators/hints. It is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly call this tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described in the schema. The tool description adds no meaning to parameters; it doesn't even reference them. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation, but the description fails to tie parameters to the tool's 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 claims to evaluate 'a+b style arithmetic' but the schema has 9 unrelated string parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) that have nothing to do with arithmetic. This is misleading and does not align with the tool's actual function. It does not distinguish from siblings and provides a false 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions expression evaluation with no context about appropriate scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to 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 disclosure burden. It does reveal one behavior ('Page content is not stored') but does not mention read-only behavior, network activity, error handling, or how the tool handles the nine optional parameters. The mismatch between the single-purpose description and the schema's many unrelated fields creates confusion rather than clarity.

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

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

Two sentences, no filler, and the first sentence front-loads the core operation. The second sentence adds a useful behavioral disclosure. Every word earn its place.

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

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

Given a 9-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-sentence description centered only on URL handling is far from complete. The agent is left without either a high-level understanding of the tool's broader behavior or any indication of the response format.

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 does add output semantics for the URL parameter (host, scheme, HTTP status) beyond the schema's 'normalize or cite', but it provides no information on how the other eight parameters relate to the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific operation: return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. This identifies a concrete resource and action. However, it does not distinguish the tool from close siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, and it makes no mention of the large set of unrelated parameters in the schema, so it is not a 5.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of its siblings, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. An agent would not know if this is the right choice among the many URL-handling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only discloses 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy note, but nothing about what the tool does with inputs, what it returns, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with 9 input types.

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 (two sentences) but under-specified rather than concise. The only concrete detail is the privacy note; the rest is vague and unstructured, offering no front-loaded actionable info.

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 heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a vague description, the tool is severely incomplete. An agent cannot infer expected output, when to call it, or how to interpret results.

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 each parameter has a specific description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a vague action ('Show how this request is classified') without identifying a clear resource or what 'classified' means. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like domain-shape or validate-json, and the purpose is open to interpretation.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No scenarios, no exclusions, no hints about which sibling tools are more appropriate for specific cases. An agent has no basis to select this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions hostname splitting, but the schema reveals the tool accepts many other input types (ref, url, city, feed, json, path, zone, query) and discards them after checks. The description is misleading about the tool's actual scope, failing to disclose that it validates various data shapes beyond hostnames. No error handling, output format, or side effects are mentioned.

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 that front-loads the core action. It is concise with no fluff, but it omits critical scope information, which is a completeness issue rather than a structure issue. For conciseness alone, it is 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?

This tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must be thorough. A one-line statement covering only hostname splitting while ignoring the other 8 input types is completely inadequate for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool. It fails to mention return values, error behavior, or intended use cases for the other parameters.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only references hostname, while other parameters like city or json are not explained in the description. The description does not compensate for the gap or add value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Split' and the resource 'hostname', and explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data, which distinguishes it from related tools like figma-url-shape or github-repo-shape. The scope is 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 implies usage (for extracting labels from hostnames) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. There is no mention of when not to use it, so the guidance is only implied.

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 itself. It only mentions 'HEAD a public URL and return status only,' which is minimal. It does not explain the side effects (though likely none), the handling of the other schema parameters (many are 'discarded' per schema descriptions), or any potential limitations. The rich schema suggests broader behavior that is left entirely undisclosed.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it does not add value beyond a simple purpose statement. It is not front-loaded with critical scope or behavioral hints, and the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient wording. It earns a middle score for not being verbose while still lacking substance.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain how the different parameter types relate to the stated purpose, when to use them, or what the full range of behavior is. The description only covers the URL case and ignores the other schema fields, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use the tool correctly for non-URL inputs.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter already has a textual description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it neither improves nor degrades the schema's coverage. A baseline of 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 specific verb ('HEAD') and resource ('public URL') and indicates the output ('status only'), which gives a basic sense of purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'web-fetch' or 'browser-url-ok' that also interact with URLs, and it fails to account for the nine diverse input parameters in the schema, making the stated purpose incomplete and potentially misleading.

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 siblings (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'playwright-url-ok', 'validate-json'). The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the schema alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the path is discarded, which is useful, but fails to mention whether the URL is validated, what parts are returned, or whether any network access occurs. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is dangerously sparse.

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. It is concise, but for a tool with 9 parameters and no other documentation, the brevity may be a liability. Still, as a standalone purpose statement, it is 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?

The tool has 9 parameters (city, feed, host, json, zone, etc.) that are seemingly unrelated to a Figma URL parser. The description provides no explanation of the role of these parameters, whether they are ignored, or how the tool behaves with them. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete for an agent to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning—it doesn't even indicate which parameter is the primary input (presumably 'url'). Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description adds little value beyond confirming the general 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 verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' It also adds a behavioral detail ('Path discarded.'). This is clear enough to distinguish it from generic URL tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, so it misses the top 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or domain-shape. The description implies it is for Figma URLs, but does not state exclusions or mention other tools. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does contribute one meaningful behavioral fact: no disk access. However, it does not disclose return shape, failure behavior, or what qualifies as 'safe', leaving much of the task's behavior unstated.

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. 'No disk access' is a distinct, valuable fact that earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 annotations, and no output schema, yet the description never explains which parameter drives the call, what happens when none are supplied, or what the return value looks like. The agent is left to infer important invocation details.

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 input schema already documents every parameter. The description adds little beyond repeating that 'path' is checked and no disk access occurs, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a clear verb ('check') and resource ('path'), plus the important constraint that there is no disk access. It is specific enough to be distinguished from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or wiki-title-ok, though 'looks safe' leaves the exact safety rules undefined.

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

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

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The purpose implies use for path-safety checks, but the agent is not told when not to use it or which sibling might be a better fit.

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 disclosure burden, and it only states the external provider (Open-Meteo). It does not mention that it makes a network call, whether disk or network access is involved, what side effects may occur, failure modes, or that most schema inputs are 'discarded' except the relevant one. This is thin disclosure for a tool with many possible inputs.

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

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

The description is a single, compact sentence with no fluff. It is concise, but given the tool's 9-parameter ambiguity, it is perhaps too sparse to be an effective 'micro-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?

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too minimal to explain what an agent should do with the other parameters, what a valid response is, or when to prefer a sibling like `weather-hint`. The tool's true behavior is not fully specified.

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

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

While schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds almost no parameter meaning and creates ambiguity: the `city` schema description says 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call', while the tool description says latitude/longitude are returned. The other eight parameters (url, json, path, zone, etc.) are completely unexplained relative to the stated purpose, leaving an agent without enough information to choose the correct parameter or combination.

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 an unambiguous purpose: return latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo. It names a specific resource (a place), an operation (get coordinates), and the data provider. It does not, however, differentiate it from siblings like weather-hint, and the schema reveals many unrelated parameters not covered by the 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 gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisite context. An agent only infers from 'latitude and longitude for a place' that it is for coordinates, but there is no mention of how to select among the nine optional parameters or what behavior triggers this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'parse owner and repo', but does not mention that other parameters are discarded, does not describe error handling, or return format. The schema hints that many params are discarded, but the description does not surface that.

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

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

A single sentence that directly states the purpose. No fluff.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain which parameters are relevant, what the return value looks like, or what happens on invalid input.

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 descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the GitHub specificity to the 'url' parameter, but does not clarify the role of other parameters or how they interact.

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

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

The description states a specific action (parse) on a specific resource (GitHub URL) and specifies the output (owner and repo). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like figma-url-shape or jira-key-shape.

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

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the name and description imply it is for GitHub URLs. No mention of alternatives 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 must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful behavior: titles are not returned. It does not mention pagination, errors, authentication, network access, or exact return format, but the disclosure of the discarded-titles behavior earns it a passing score.

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, front-loaded action, and no unnecessary filler. Both statements earn their place by clarifying the core behavior and an important exclusions.

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 core task is simple, but the schema exposes nine optional parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain that most or all arguments are irrelevant, nor does it specify the return format, so an agent still has some 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 parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning about which parameters apply to the HN-count operation; it only reinforces a 'discarded' theme already present in some parameter descriptions.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: count current Hacker News front-page stories. The added clue 'Titles discarded' further distinguishes this from a tool that retrieves or displays full HN content.

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: whenever only the count of current HN front-page stories is needed. It does not explicitly point to alternatives or give a clear when-not-to-use condition, aside from the implied limitation that titles are discarded.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It is only a noun phrase and gives no indication of side effects, read-only nature, returned values, or what happens with the many parameters.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with no filler words. However, it is overly terse and repeats the topic already implied by the name, so the economy is under-specification rather than effective 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a single uninformative sentence is far too sparse. The intended workflow, what the tool returns, which parameters are used, and what 'clock calls' actually means are all missing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are individually documented. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema is already doing the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description essentially restates the tool name: 'iana-zones' becomes 'IANA timezone names', adding only the vague context 'for clock calls'. It never states the operation the tool performs, such as listing, validating, or returning zones.

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

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

The phrase 'for clock calls' implies some relationship to clock/time usage, but it gives no concrete condition for when to invoke this tool. It also does not compare against strong siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', leaving the choice 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state a public GET-like fetch and limiting output, but it omits important operational details like failure behavior, response shape of 'group counts,' URL/parameter selection, or any rate-limiting/error conditions.

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 sentence without filler, and the key scope ('Fetch', 'public', 'group counts only') is front-loaded. It is concise, though this efficiency harms 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?

This tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain the return shape and the needed argument mapping. It only says 'return then group counts only,' leaving both invocation wiring and result structure unclear to the 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'Public hostname') and none is tied to fetching a robots.txt file. The tool description does not identify which parameter supplies the target URL, leaving the 9 optional parameters ambiguous.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a public robots.txt' and restricts output to 'group counts only,' which makes the core purpose clear and set apart from general web-fetching sibling tools. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the targeted resource and output are enough to distinguish it.

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

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

The description gives no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information and never mentions alternatives. With many similar siblings like web-fetch, fetch-status, or browser-url-ok, the agent gets no guidance on selecting this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does offer one piece: 'Key discarded' communicates that the input is not retained. But it says nothing about what happens on valid versus invalid shape, whether it returns a boolean, throws, or performs network access — leaving most of the behavioral surface 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and zero filler. The brevity is genuinely concise, though it trades away content completeness, which is penalized under contextual_completeness rather than here.

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

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

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, a two-sentence description is materially inadequate. It fails to explain the return value, the definition of a valid 'shape,' or how any of the nine parameters relate to the stated purpose, so an agent cannot invoke it correctly or interpret its result.

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 nine parameters is individually described in the schema and the baseline would be 3. But the description references a 'key' that maps to no parameter at all, and it adds no guidance on how the Jira check relates to ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, or query — creating a mapping gap rather than adding 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 verb and resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), which distinguishes it by name from sibling format-checkers like github-repo-shape and domain-shape. However, it never defines what a valid Jira key shape is, never states the result of the check, and does not reconcile with a schema whose nine parameters contain no Jira-key field — so an agent cannot tell which input is the key.

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

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

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance at all. With a dozen sibling shape/format/URL checkers (github-repo-shape, figma-url-shape, domain-shape, normalize-url), the description gives an agent nothing to select 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 carries the full burden, but it discloses nothing about behavior: no read-only guarantee, side-effect warning, failure modes, auth requirements, or return semantics. The phrase 'ISO 639 language tag uz' says nothing about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 that is due to under-specification, not conciseness. It is a one-line label with no useful operation, context, or structure; the brevity comes at the cost of meaning.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description explains almost nothing about invocation, expected input, or results. An agent has no way to determine which parameter matters or what a successful call returns.

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 acceptable despite no parameter detail in the description. However, the description provides no insight into how any of the nine optional parameters relate to language-tag processing, wasting the opportunity to make the schema coherent.

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 essentially a noun phrase naming the ISO 639 code 'uz' rather than stating what the tool does with it. It does not say whether the tool validates, detects, returns, or transforms language tags, so an agent cannot infer the operation. This is only one step above an outright tautology.

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 for when to use this tool versus any alternative. There is no mention of input conditions, exclusions, or related sibling tools such as search-query-len, validate-json, or normalize-url.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the body is discarded, but it does not state whether an outbound network request is made, what statuses or errors are returned, whether redirects matter, or any safety implications for a public URL.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded, with no filler: it states the purpose and the key behavioral caveat. It is not a perfect 5 because the tool has nine optional parameters, and this level of brevity leaves important decision points unresolved.

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 optional parameters, no required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot reliably know how to choose parameters, what kind of response to expect, or how this tool differs from several sibling fetch/status 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%, and each of the nine optional parameters already has a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify which field should be used as the library docs URL, but the schema largely carries that information.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the core outcome: HTTP status for a public library docs URL, with the body discarded. It is specific enough to distinguish this from a content-fetching tool, though it does not explicitly say 'returns' or name sibling fetch/status 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?

It implies when the tool is useful: when only the HTTP status is needed and the body is irrelevant. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools like fetch-status, web-fetch, or browser-url-ok.

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 disclaims that values are discarded, which is a small transparency step, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, network access, or the exact nature of the 'JSON object' being counted.

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 redundant wording. The core action is front-loaded and the 'values discarded' clause adds a meaningful behavioral detail without bloat.

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 full schema description coverage, the tool description does not explain the meaning or interrelation of its 9 heterogeneous parameters, nor what output format to expect (no output schema). It is not complete enough for an agent to correctly decide which parameters to pass or how to interpret the result in the context of the sibling tools.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and the schema's own descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after shape check') are inconsistent with a simple key-count tool, creating confusion rather than clarity.

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

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

The description states a specific operation ('Count keys') and a resource ('JSON object'), adding the behavioral note that values are discarded. This helps distinguish it from validation tools like validate-json, but it leaves ambiguous whether the counted object is the tool call's own parameters or a stringified JSON provided through one of the fields.

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. The description never explains when to prefer this over sibling tools such as validate-json or domain-shape, nor does it list conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a key behavior: 'Query and fragment are dropped.' This is useful. However, it says nothing about what happens to the other eight parameters (e.g., city, ref, json) that appear in the schema, leaving the agent to wonder whether they are ignored, cause errors, or alter behavior. The description is minimal and does not address error handling, side effects, or permission needs.

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 states the core output and a key constraint. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it omits essential context about the other parameters, so while concise, it is under-specified. Length is appropriate, but structure could include more 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It explains only the URL normalization aspect and ignores the other parameters entirely. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior without exploring the schema, which includes fields like 'city' and 'json' that seem unrelated. The description does not explain whether these are ignored or trigger different behavior, making it inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond the core 'url' handling. Since the schema covers everything, the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not clarify the relationship between the many unrelated parameters and the normalization function, but it also does not contradict 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 clearly states the tool's primary function: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' This is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not mention the many other parameters in the schema, which could confuse an agent about the tool's actual scope. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, but the core purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent cannot determine whether normalize-url is better than browser-url-ok or github-repo-shape for a given task. No exclusionary or contextual information is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no browser is launched, which is useful, but it doesn't describe what 'can be opened' means operationally (e.g., HTTP status, redirects), what happens with the other parameters, or what the return value is. This is minimal 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 only two sentences with no fluff, which is concise. However, given the tool's complexity (9 params, many siblings), the content is too sparse to be 'appropriately sized'; it does not front-load essential details like scope or usage.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set. The description provides only a basic URL check, omitting any explanation of the other parameters, return behavior, or when to use it. This is far from complete for an agent to select and call 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 3. The description adds no parameter meaning; the schema descriptions themselves are somewhat vague ('discarded after the shape check'), but they do define types and indicate disposal. The tool description does not augment or clarify any 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 clear action for URLs ('Check whether a URL can be opened') but the schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (city, json, feed, etc.) that are never mentioned, making the actual scope ambiguous. It also doesn't differentiate from siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status beyond 'no browser launched', which is a weak distinction.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 27 sibling tools, the agent is left to infer the use case, and the description doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

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, this dimension is carried fully by the description. The sentence 'Query discarded' adds a privacy-relevant behavioral note, which is useful. However, it does not disclose possible side effects, error conditions, or what happens when multiple parameters are provided.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the main behavior and then a data-handling note. No filler or redundant explanation. This is appropriately concise for the size of the tool description.

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

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

The description is too thin for the context: nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotation are available. It does not confirm the output type, the precise parameter to use, or whether ignoring other parameters is acceptable. Leaving the agent to infer the input and return shape creates a real risk of incorrect invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions already carry most of the meaning. The description only re-emphasizes that the query is discarded, which adds little beyond the schema. The presence of nine optional parameters makes it less obvious which one represents 'the search query,' but the schema's own wording helps fill that gap.

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 operation: count characters in a search query. It pairs a concrete verb with the object, which is enough to tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the name and wording make the core purpose obvious.

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 for when to prefer this tool over the many sibling tools (e.g., hn-front-count, memory-key-count, or other shape validators). The description also does not mention an alternative or exclusion condition. The agent has 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 present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool is a catalog, giving no information about side effects, what the input parameters influence, whether it makes network calls, or what the output looks like. There is no depth beyond the assertion of what it is.

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

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

The description is only one short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It does not front-load operational information, and the phrase 'short catalog' carries little value. The brevity is detrimental given the tool's 9-parameter input 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 output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is radically incomplete. An agent cannot tell what triggering this tool does, what the parameters are for, or what a result means. This is unusable without external documentation or extensive inference.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description itself adds nothing about the parameters or how they map to HTTP status codes, so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the 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 that the tool is a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which does identify the subject matter. However, it is a noun-phrase and does not specify what the tool does with the inputs: does it return a list, map inputs to codes, or validate them? It also does not distinguish it from sibling tools such as fetch-status or browser-url-ok, leaving the tool's role 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of its siblings. There is no mention of intended scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no way to decide whether status-catalog is appropriate for a 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the 'Prompt discarded', implying the input prompt (and thus likely the parameters) are not used. This is a useful behavioral hint. However, it does not clarify whether the tool has side effects, what the template contains, or whether it is a read-only operation. The disclosure is partial and cryptic.

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—one sentence—and front-loads the core action ('Return a three-step thinking template') followed by a key behavioral note. It is efficient and contains no filler. However, it may be too terse, omitting valuable context that a longer description could provide.

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

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

This is a complex tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is grossly under-specified: it does not explain what the template is, how the parameters relate (if at all), what the output format looks like, or any constraints. An agent cannot correctly anticipate the behavior beyond returning a fixed template, making it inadequate for effective invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for all 9 parameters, so the schema itself documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds no value to parameter semantics; it does not mention any parameters or how they affect the return value. Given the high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have clarified that parameters are ignored, reinforcing the 'Prompt discarded' note.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' However, it is vague about what the template is for or how it relates to the tool's name. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling tools, many of which also return simple data (e.g., utc-time, iana-zones). The phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints at ignoring input but does not clarify the template's 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. The description only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer that it might be used for structured thinking, but 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 are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the output (current time) but does not address side effects, handling of the many extraneous parameters, or whether they are ignored. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with such a broad schema.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine optional parameters. There is no structuring of key information or guidance on priority. The brevity is not a virtue here; it omits essential context.

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 (nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine which parameters are required (none are marked required), which are relevant, or what the response format will be. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but the tool description adds no meaning about how parameters relate to the stated purpose. The 'zone' parameter is clearly the IANA timezone name, but the description does not confirm that other parameters are irrelevant or explain their role. This leaves the agent confused about which inputs 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 clear purpose: 'Current time in a named IANA timezone.' This distinguishes it from siblings like utc-time and iana-zones. However, the input schema includes nine parameters, many unrelated to timezones (e.g., url, city, json), which creates ambiguity about what the tool actually accepts. The description does not clarify that only the 'zone' parameter matters, undermining the clarity.

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 is no mention of when to use this tool versus siblings such as utc-time (for UTC) or iana-zones (for listing zones). The single sentence gives no context on appropriate conditions, alternatives, 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output is the current UTC timestamp but does not describe the return format (e.g., ISO string, epoch seconds), side effects, or the role of the optional parameters. For a tool that accepts 9 parameters, the description is silent on how they affect behavior, which is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero extraneous words. It is appropriately concise for a simple utility. There is no unnecessary structure or repetition. It earns a top score for 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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters with descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check' and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain why these parameters are accepted, what the return format is, or how the tool integrates with the sibling set. An agent calling this tool cannot know what response to expect beyond 'a timestamp' and why such diverse parameters are relevant. The description is not sufficient for a full understanding of the tool's 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. The description adds no information about the parameters or why they exist. While the schema descriptions are detailed, the tool description does not help an agent understand the relationship between the parameters and the tool's purpose. It does not fail to compensate because coverage is complete, but it offers no extra 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 'Current UTC timestamp' states a specific verb (get current) and resource (UTC timestamp). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', which are related but distinct (those likely convert or list zones, not return current time). The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'timezone' for conversions. An agent must infer from the name and context that this is the tool for getting the current UTC time, but there is no 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 are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only notes that the body is discarded, which implies no persistence, but it does not explain the return value, error handling, or what happens to the nine optional parameters. This is a significant gap for a validation tool without annotations or an output schema.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and the side-effect fact. It wastes no words and is well structured for a straightforward validation tool.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not clarify which parameter to pass as the body, what the result looks like, or how the many other parameters relate to the validation. The agent must rely entirely on the schema for these details, which the description fails to consolidate.

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

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

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning and even introduces ambiguity by using 'body' rather than the schema's 'json' field. The parameter descriptions in the schema carry the actual semantic weight.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking whether a body is valid JSON, with the verb 'check' and the resource 'body'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling shape-check tools like domain-shape or file-path-ok, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or sibling tools, leaving the agent without routing information.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the function (retrieving temperature) and does not disclose side effects, error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid cities. The schema mentions that many parameters are 'discarded', but that is not reflected in the description, leaving the behavior 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, concise sentence with no fluff, which is appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it lacks any structural elements like usage context or examples, making it efficient but minimal.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't specify which parameters are needed, what the output looks like, or any constraints. An agent would have no way to correctly invoke this tool beyond guessing 'city' is the intended input, and the other parameters remain 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema and actually creates confusion. It only mentions 'city', while the schema defines eight other parameters with unrelated descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'JSON text to validate'). The description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they relate to the stated weather purpose.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (get current temperature) and the resource (a city via Open-Meteo), making the core purpose apparent. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like geo-hint or timezone, and the schema's inclusion of many unrelated parameters (ref, url, json, etc.) muddies the purpose, even though the text itself is specific.

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 any conditions or prerequisites. It is a single statement with no exclusionary or contextual information to steer an agent's decision.

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 behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: the body is discarded, so the tool is not suitable for content extraction. Still, it omits details such as redirect handling, timeout behavior, authentication requirements, or any error/response format, which leaves notable gaps for a network 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 two short sentences with no filler: it states the core result, scopes it to public URLs, and discloses the body-discarding behavior. The most decision-relevant constraint is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, nine optional parameters, and many URL-related siblings, the description is too thin. It does not describe the return shape, error behavior, redirect policy, or how the other parameters relate to the stated fetch purpose, so an agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior or confidently select it among alternatives.

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 additional parameter explanation in the tool description. The description does not add semantic value beyond the schema, and it fails to clarify why a web-fetch tool has eight non-URL parameters, leaving agents to rely entirely on the individual parameter descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool returns HTTP status and content type for a public URL and adds the important constraint that the body is discarded. It is specific about the resource and result, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from URL-related siblings such as fetch-status or browser-url-ok, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

The phrase 'public URL' and 'Body discarded' imply the tool is for lightweight reachability/content-type checks and not for retrieving page content. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or playwright-url-ok, and no when-not-to-use exclusions beyond the discarded body.

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 explaining effects and expectations. The only behavioral detail is 'Title discarded after the call', which conveys some data‑retention policy. But the description says nothing about whether the call is read‑only, whether it performs network access, what happens on a missing title, whether it validates formatting, or what a 'returned' result means. The minimal evidence—'discarded after the call'—is a thin disclosure for a tool that may access external resources.

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, which is easy to parse and front-loads the main purpose in its first clause. The second sentence, 'Title discarded after the call.', is a justified piece of behavioral information that earns its place by revealing important data handling. The text is not bloated, but the brevity walks a tight line between convenient and under-specified. Still, for sheer conciseness, it is 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?

Given a nine-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not explain which property to provide as the title, what the tool does with each of the nine parameters, how to recognize a valid vs. missing title, or what a result looks like. An agent reading this definition would not know how to construct a correct request. The gap between the tool's declared action and the parameter list makes the definition structurally incomplete.

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 100% of the parameters, the tool's explicit purpose is to check a Wikipedia title, and none of the nine properties (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) is documented as 'title' or even as something that maps to a Wikipedia title. The interface claims the title is discarded, but there is no way for an agent to infer which parameter carries the title value. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and actually incurs an inconsistency: the tool claims to handle a title that the schema does not define.

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 short description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking whether a Wikipedia title exists. The phrase 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists' uses a specific verb and resource, making the core intent unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate between sibling tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, so the tool is distinguishable only by its name and narrow focus rather than by explicit scoping statements.

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 exactly one opening sentence and the note that the title is discarded. It provides no indication of when to use this tool over a sibling, what inputs are required, or what context is appropriate. There is no guidance on prerequisites, where the title parameter should come from, or when a different checker would be more suitable. This is a clear gap for a tool with nine parameters.

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