Language yo

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It notes 'Task text discarded' (indicating inputs are not retained) and 'Returns connection methods' but gives no detail on side effects, safety (read-only assumption not stated), or what 'connection methods' actually contain. For a meta-tool with no annotation support, this is thin.

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 concise sentences, with the core action stated first and the note about text discarding front-loaded. No wasted words, though the second sentence could be expanded with minimal prose. Overall, efficient and 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?

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and 27 sibling tools, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what 'connection methods' are, how to interpret the result, or how this gateway relates to the sibling tools. An agent cannot reliably decide when to call this tool or understand its response. More context is needed for a tool of 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 each parameter has a description. The tool description adds little beyond that—it mentions task types and 'Task text discarded' but does not explain how the parameters (e.g., city, query, host) relate to the tool's operation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents each attribute.

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

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

The description states a verb (Find) and a resource (public pay-per-call tool gateway), and lists example task types (weather, search, scrape, voice). However, 'connection methods' is vague and does not clearly differentiate this tool from its many siblings, which are specific utilities like weather-hint or search-query-len. The purpose is somewhat clear but not sharp enough.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice, but does not state when not to use it or point to sibling tools that might be more appropriate. An agent has no heuristic to decide between this and the listed siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'No browser is launched,' which is a mild behavioral hint, but it does not explain what constitutes 'can be opened' (e.g., HTTP status, DNS resolution), whether it performs a network request, or how it handles the many unrelated parameters. The presence of unrelated parameters (city, json, path, zone) is not explained, creating ambiguity about what the tool actually verifies.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence), which technically is concise, but it is under-specified rather than deliberately concise. It omits critical information about parameter relevance and behavior. Conciseness should not come at the cost of utility; here it sacrifices clarity.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool actually checks beyond 'URL can be opened,' nor does it clarify why parameters like 'city' or 'zone' would be relevant. An agent would have no idea what to pass or what result to expect. The description fails to provide the necessary context for correct 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% because every parameter has a description, and those descriptions provide some meaning (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). However, the tool description itself does not reference the parameters, and the parameters' connection to the tool's purpose is unclear. Since the schema carries the weight, the description adds little value beyond the baseline. The descriptions indicate most parameters are discarded, but the tool's actual input expectations are vague.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened,' which is a specific action. It also adds a notable behavior ('No browser is launched'), which helps distinguish it from launch-based tools. However, it doesn't differentiate from closely named siblings like playwright-url-ok or fetch-status, which likely perform similar checks, so it doesn't fully distinguish in a crowded sibling context.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer this over playwright-url-ok, fetch-status, or normalize-url. It also doesn't state any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess 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 full burden of disclosing behavior, yet it only asserts 'Expression discarded' while the schema contains no expression parameter. It does not explain what the tool actually does with any of the nine params, what if anything it mutates, what it returns, or whether the call is safe.

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

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

The text is only two sentences and technically concise, but neither sentence earns its place in a tool at uses-described. The second sentence, 'Expression discarded,' is not meaningful relative to the schema, and the whole thing is far too short to orient an agent.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is dramatically incomplete. It does not mention which parameters actually drive the behavior, what return an expression might expect, what errors could occur, or in what sense the tool is different from the other URL/shape/check tools. An agent cannot safely guess how to invoke it.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 3, but the description adds no useful gluing of meaning. It refers to an expression that does not exist in the schema, so it neither complements nor clarifies any of the nine parameters. The value of the description is actually negative here.

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

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

The description claims 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic' and 'Expression discarded,' but the input schema contains no expression-like parameter at all; every parameter is a URL, ref, city, JSON, path, or query value. This is misleading rather than merely vague, because an agent would not be able to connect the promised operation to any actual field.

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 of the sibling tools. The only instruction-like phrase, 'Expression discarded,' cannot even be acted upon. There is no mention of exclusions, preconditions, or relationships with the many similar-looking URL/shape/validation tools in the sibling list.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral load. It discloses that page content is not stored, but says nothing about whether an HTTP request is made, response format, side effects, rate limits, or failure behavior. This is far from adequate for a tool with multiple computation and network-adjacent 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 very concise: two short sentences, no filler, and the main behavior is front-loaded. It loses one point because the brevity is arguably too extreme given the complex schema, but that is a completeness issue, not a wastefulness issue.

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

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

IGHcompleteness is inadequate. The tool has nine optional parameters spanning disparate domains (Git refs, weather, timezone, JSON, file paths) and no output schema. The description only addresses one parameter and gives no overview, usage pattern, or formulation for the rest. This forces the agent to fall back on schema descriptions, which are themselves sparse.

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 some meaning to the 'url' parameter by specifying the extracted items (host, scheme, HTTP status), but it does not explain the purpose triggers or semantics of the other eight parameters, which are only described briefly in the schema. It does not elevate beyond the schema baseline.

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 behavior for URL input ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it only addresses one of nine parameters, so it is incomplete about the tool's full scope, and it does not differentiate from sibling URL-oriented tools such as normalize-url or fetch-status.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note that 'Page content is not stored' is a data handling fact, not a usage selector. A skilled agent is left to infer purpose from the name and schema.

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 behavioral burden, but it only says 'No identifiers are retained.' It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it accesses any external resources, what side effects it may have, or how the classification result is produced. The privacy guarantee is useful but does not make up for the missing operational detail.

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 deliberately short—the purpose statement comes first, and the privacy guarantee is a useful second sentence. There is no repetition and no padding. The brevity is a trade-off against completeness rather than a conciseness flaw.

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 9-parameter tool with no required params, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no information about valid parameter combinations, what the classified output is, or how the result should be interpreted. An agent cannot reliably decide which fields count to provide or what to do with the return value.

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

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

All 9 parameters are already documented with individual descriptions in the schema, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description itself adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, and it does not clarify how the different optional fields (ref, url, query, path, etc.) influence the classification outcome.

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 action verb ('Show') and an object ('how this request is classified'), but it never defines what 'request' refers to, what classification categories exist, or what the output will look like. It is distinguishable from the shape-checking siblings only by being more general, yet the actual purpose remains ambiguous.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative, no mention of valid input conditions, and no reference to the many similar check/ok/shape siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, or domain-shape. The only additional sentence is a privacy statement, not usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It claims 'without WHOIS or ownership data,' which is a useful negative constraint, but it never explains what the tool actually returns for the other eight parameter types, whether it is read-only, or what 'shape check' produces. The scope mismatch between description and schema leaves an agent guessing at the tool's real behavior for most 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 single sentence is tight and front-loaded with zero filler. However, for a nine-parameter tool it is too terse to convey the actual scope, and brevity here comes at the cost of correctness.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does for 8 of its 9 inputs, provides no output expectations, and offers no usage routing against a large set of overlapping 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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions already explain each parameter, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds nothing about parameters and instead implies the 'host' parameter is the entire point of the tool, which contradicts the schema's nine-parameter design. Several schema descriptions note fields are 'discarded after the check,' which the description does not reinforce.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Split a hostname into labels'), but this represents only one of nine accepted input types. The tool actually accepts ref, url, city, feed, json, path, zone, and query parameters too, suggesting it is a general format/shape validator. The description materially misrepresents the tool's scope by implying it only handles hostnames.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs the heavily overlapping siblings (validate-json, file-path-ok, normalize-url, browser-url-ok, search-query-len, iana-zones, figma-url-shape, github-repo-shape). Given the tool accepts json, path, url, zone, and query inputs that directly collide with those dedicated tools, the absence of any disambiguation is a serious gap, and the hostname-only description actively misleads.

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 states it performs a HEAD request, which is non-destructive, but omits details such as response format (e.g., status codes returned), error handling, or that most parameters are discarded. The schema mentions discarding for some params, but the tool description does not. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a network-calling 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 a single, terse sentence that front-loads the core action. It is maximally concise and structurally clear. However, the brevity contributes to the lack of contextual completeness, but that is assessed separately. For this dimension, it earns a 4 because every word earns its place.

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

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

The description is inadequate for a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not clarify how the parameters relate to the HEAD request (e.g., which are used for the URL vs. discarded), what the response contains beyond 'status', or how it differs from sibling URL-checking tools. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description explaining its role, including whether it is discarded. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. Per baseline, with high coverage, a 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat schema details but also does not add meaningful context like which parameters are typically used together.

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 (HEAD), resource (public URL), and output (status only). This distinguishes it from content-fetching tools like web-fetch, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The word 'public' implies no auth, and 'status only' narrows the 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 siblings like browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, or web-fetch. The description implies a lightweight status check but does not state exclusion criteria or trade-offs. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling names, which is insufficient.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states only 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' This reveals almost nothing about behavior: what is validated, what the return value is, side effects, or how the many other parameters are handled. The phrase 'Path discarded' contradicts the schema's 'path' parameter that claims to check a file path with no disk access, creating confusion rather than transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence and a fragment), but this is under-specification, not concise effectiveness. It front-loads an unhelpful purpose and omits essential context. A concise description would still convey the tool's multi-purpose nature or scope; this one is simply too sparse to be useful.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must compensate heavily. It does not even address the majority of parameters, nor does it clarify the tool's overall function. For an agent to call this tool correctly, it would need much more information about which parameters apply and what the tool does with them. The description is wholly inadequate for the tool's 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no meaningful semantics and actively misleads by implying only the URL matters. It does not explain the relationship between the 'url' parameter and the nine others, nor does it clarify which are relevant to Figma URL parsing. The description detracts from, rather than augments, the schema's already clear 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 purpose—'Parse a Figma file URL'—but the input schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, zone, etc.) with hints about weather, RSS, validation, and timezones. This mismatch makes the actual purpose ambiguous: is this a Figma URL parser or a generic shape checker? The description fails to clarify the tool's real scope, so an agent cannot reliably determine what it does.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json, domain-shape). The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions. An agent has no basis for selecting this tool over others that appear to cover parts of its parameter set.

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 discloses 'No disk access,' which is a useful safety note, but it omits any mention of side effects, return format, or behavior for the many non-path parameters. The statement is too sparse to inform the agent about potential state changes or 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?

It is a single concise sentence, which is structurally clean. However, given the tool has 9 parameters and a potentially multi-purpose role, the brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The sentence is front-loaded with the core action, but it lacks any follow-on structure to cover the breadth of inputs.

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 highly incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation. It does not explain how the path check relates to the other apparent input types (URLs, JSON, timezone, etc.), leaving the agent unable to determine correct usage. The description provides almost no context for making an informed invocation decision.

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 additional meaning beyond the schema. It only references 'path' and repeats the 'no disk access' note, offering no insight into how the other 8 parameters are used or why they coexist in a path-checking tool. The description fails to contextualize the parameters or explain their role in the check.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('check') and a resource ('path') with a safety qualifier, but 'safe' is vague and the tool is not differentiated from siblings like 'browser-url-ok' or 'domain-shape'. The inclusion of 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) in the schema further muddies the actual purpose, leaving the agent unsure what the tool truly validates.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention what type of path check it performs, whether it is suitable for URLs, hostnames, or other inputs, or when to prefer a sibling tool. The description gives zero usage context beyond a one-line action.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'via Open-Meteo'. It does not clarify whether this is a network call, whether it is read-only, what happens for unknown places, or what the output structure 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 highly concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. It is not the only verb but the sentence is compact and aligns with the purpose statement. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, but this dimension focuses on structure specifically.

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 required fields, no annotation, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse for an agent to invoke confidently. It doesn't explain which input matters, what the returned data looks like, or how failures are signaled.

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 parameter semantics are largely handled by the schema, setting a baseline of 3. However, the tool description does not help select among the nine optional parameters or explain which parameter (likely `city`) drives the geo lookup.

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

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

The phrase 'Latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo' clearly communicates the core purpose and indicates an external geocoding source. It is not a tautology and does distinguish the tool as location-focused, though it doesn't explicitly mention a verb or connect to `city`.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like `weather-hint` or `timezone`. The description does not state which input should be provided, what prerequisite context matters, or what output the agent should do with it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Parse' strongly implies a pure, non-mutating, read-only operation, which is good. However, the description does not disclose what happens with malformed URLs, whether any network access is involved, or how other optional schema parameters are handled. It therefore adds a basic behavioral signal but leaves meaningful uncertainty.

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 eight-word sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and source. There is no filler or redundant phrasing; every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must supply enough context for correct invocation. It gives the extracted result ('owner and repo') but does not state the output format, exactly which of the nine optional parameters to set, or what happens on invalid input. The tool is simple enough that the core usage is inferable from 'Parse ... GitHub URL,' but an agent still lacks precise return and parameter selection information.

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

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

The schema is fully described (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by clarifying that the 'url' parameter is expected to be a GitHub URL and that the result is the repository's owner and repo. This is more than the schema's generic 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' wording. It does not map other parameters, but for a parse tool the mapping of the URL is the critical information.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Parse'), a concrete resource ('owner and repo'), and the exact context ('a GitHub URL'). The GitHub-specific resource and extraction target distinguish it from sibling shape-check tools like figma-url-shape and jira-key-shape, so an agent can tell what it does without reading the schema.

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 the usage condition — a GitHub URL whose owner/repo need to be parsed — but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over siblings, or when not to use it. No alternatives are named, so the guidance is only inferred from the singular description; this is acceptable but not explicit.

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

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says titles are discarded. It does not mention read-only behavior, network dependence, error cases, or the return format.

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, both doing useful work. The core action is front-loaded and there is no repetition or filler.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain why the parameters exist, how many the agent should pass, or what a successful response looks like.

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

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

The schema already provides descriptions for all nine parameters, so the baseline is acceptable. However, the parameters are generic and the description does not clarify whether or how they relate to the HN count, which prevents a higher score.

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

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

"Count current Hacker News front-page stories" is a specific verb-resource statement, and "Titles discarded" narrows the expected output. It does not name or exclude a sibling tool, but the 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as web-fetch, fetch-status, or search tools. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only hints at a curated list of names. It does not state what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, how 'common' is determined, or what any side effects or prerequisites might be.

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, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. One vague phrase does not earn its place for an operation with nine parameters and no output schema.

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

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

The tool has nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only mentions timezone names. It provides no guidance on how parameters like 'ref', 'city', 'json', or 'query' relate to the purpose, leaving agents unable to determine the tool's actual scope.

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 for this dimension is 3. The description adds only a weak clue that the zone should be a common IANA name for clock purposes, but it does not clarify which of the nine parameters are actually relevant or how 'common' is defined.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names...') that lacks a verb or action, so it doesn't say whether the tool lists, validates, or returns timezone names. It identifies the domain but does not differentiate it from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a use case but provides no explicit trigger, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only' conveys a read-only network operation and a restricted result. However, it does not describe error behavior, rate limits, how the URL is resolved, or that other parameters are ignored.

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

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It earns a 4 because it is concise, though it leaves out parameter mapping that would make it complete.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one line is not enough. The description does not say which parameter selects the robots.txt file, what the return shape is beyond 'group counts', or what happens when the robots.txt is missing or unavailable.

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% parameter description coverage, so the baseline would be 3, but the description does not connect any of the nine parameters to the robots.txt task. For example, 'url' is described as a URL to normalize or cite and 'host' as a public hostname, but neither is identified as the robots.txt target.

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 and resource: fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts. It also narrows the output, which helps an agent understand what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling fetch tools, but the robots.txt target is fairly unique.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like web-fetch or normalize-url, nor any when-not-to-use guidance. 'Public robots.txt' implies a simple use case, but the description does not help an agent choose it from the tool list.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Key discarded', implying no side effects, but does not explain what the check returns (e.g., boolean, error message) or any format rules. The schema descriptions repeat the 'discarded' note but add no operational detail, so transparency is minimal.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core verb and object, which is good for conciseness. However, it omits essential mapping information, so the brevity is not effective. It earns a middle score for structure because it is not verbose, but it sacrifices needed content.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not specify how to invoke the tool, which parameter holds the Jira key, what the tool returns, or any constraints. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly based solely on the provided information.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, each property description gives a generic meaning (e.g., 'Git ref name') and repeatedly says 'discarded after the shape check'. None of these descriptions connect to a Jira key. The tool description adds no clarification, so an agent cannot map any parameter to the key being checked. This is a critical 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 states a clear action ('Check a Jira issue key shape') but does not specify which input parameter contains the key. The schema lists nine unrelated string parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query), none named 'key', so an agent cannot determine what to pass. This ambiguity severely undermines purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling shape-checkers (domain-shape, github-repo-shape, figma-url-shape). It does not mention alternatives, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent without a basis for tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but it says nothing about side effects, read-only status, or behavior. The parameter descriptions in the schema mention discarding values, but the tool description itself adds no transparency.

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

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

The description is short, but short is not concise when it fails to communicate the tool's purpose. It does not front-load any actionable information and is better described as under-specified.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no behavioral description. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, which input matters, or what result to expect. This is far below a minimum viable definition.

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 covers all 9 parameters with individual descriptions, so the high coverage baseline applies. However, the tool description does not explain how these unrelated parameters relate to 'yo' or which parameter an agent is expected to use.

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 only restates the tool name ('yo' is an ISO 639 tag), so it is essentially a tautology. It does not state what action the tool performs or how it relates to any of the 9 schema properties.

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 call this tool versus any of the many sibling checkers such as wiki-title-ok, domain-shape, or validate-json. No use case, exclusions, or alternatives are described.

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 mentions 'Body discarded' and 'HTTP status', but does not explain what the tool does with the various inputs, whether it performs network calls, what side effects exist, or what success/failure looks like. This is severely insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation 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 short and could be considered concise, but it is under-specified. It contains only two clauses and omits essential information about the tool's functionality and parameters. This is over-compression rather than effective conciseness; front-loading is not enough when critical content is absent.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the tool's overall behavior, what kind of results to expect, or how the parameters are used. The single sentence covers only a narrow scenario and leaves the agent unable to correctly select or invoke the tool for other 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema and actually contradicts the schema's breadth by implying only URL-related usage. It fails to clarify how the parameters relate to the tool's purpose, so the parameter semantics remain confusing rather than illuminated.

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

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

The description states a verb ('get HTTP status') and a resource ('public library docs URL'), but this is misleading given the input schema accepts 9 unrelated parameters (weather, timezone, JSON, file path, search text, etc.). It does not accurately convey what the tool actually does across its schema, so the purpose is not clear and even potentially inaccurate.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, exclusions, or alternatives, and the agent is left without any indication of appropriate use cases beyond the one narrow mention of 'public library docs 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?

Because no annotations are present, the description must cover behavioral traits. It does add 'Values discarded,' which hints at a read-only operation, but it does not state side effects, how empties are handled, or whether it persists anything. For a tool with no annotation support, this is minimal disclosure.

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

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

The description consists of two short sentences, 'Count keys in a JSON object. Values discarded.' Both earn their place with no redundancy, making it exceptionally concise and 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?

With nine parameters, no required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to explain the input mapping and expected result. It neither specifies which parameter to use nor what happens with no parameters, leaving the tool incomplete for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema clearly documents all nine parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about which parameter is the JSON object or how the other parameters relate, so it does not exceed the schema-heavy baseline.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Count keys in a JSON object'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools more to its ambiguity about which of the nine parameters carries the object, but it is 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?

No when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description does not mention other tools, prerequisites, or contexts where this is appropriate, and the many unrelated parameters (url, city, zone) are not tied to the stated purpose.

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

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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavior source. It discloses the important behavior that query and fragment are stripped and that it returns URL components, but it does not cover error cases, input validity, or whether any network or read-only effect exists.

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 brief but precise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary output and handles the dropped query/fragment in the second sentence.

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 output is clearly summarized (origin, host, path), but with nine optional parameters and no output schema the description does little to clarify which parameter is the required URL or how missing/invalid input is handled. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds no parameter-specific detail such as which parameter is the URL to pass, leaving the agent to rely fully on 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?

Clearly states the resource (URL) and the specific result (origin, host, path), plus that query and fragment are dropped. This distinguishes the tool from generic URL-shape checkers without needing the schema.

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

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

The description implies when to use the tool: when origin, host, and path are needed and query/fragment are not. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or give an explicit when-not-to-use comparison.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only discloses that no browser is launched, but does not say whether network access occurs, whether the check is purely syntactic, what side effects may exist, or what failures look like.

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 the core action; the no-browser caveat is useful and non-redundant. It is appropriately concise, though the terseness leaves some broader context uncovered.

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 not complete enough for reliable invocation. It does not clarify which parameter to use, what result is returned, or how the URL check relates to the many non-URL schema properties.

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?

Description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing the url parameter, and gives no semantic guidance about the other eight optional 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 verb and resource: check whether a URL can be opened. The additional 'No browser is launched' distinguishes it from likely browser-launching siblings such as browser-url-ok, though it leaves unstated what 'can be opened' means exactly.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or web-fetch. The no-browser note is a behavioral clue rather than an actual when-to-use/when-not-to-use directive.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the query is discarded, which is a key side effect (no retention), but it says nothing about the behavior of the other eight parameters, potential return format, or error cases. For a tool that appears to accept a wide variety of inputs, this is thin coverage.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately note the discard behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 incomplete given the tool's actual parameter surface. While the schema documents each parameter, the description does not explain why a tool named 'search-query-len' accepts ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, and zone. This creates confusion about the tool's true scope. There is no output schema, so the return format is also unaddressed. For a tool with this many optional parameters, more context is needed to enable correct invocation.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100% – every parameter already has an individual description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'normalize or cite'). The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 ('Count') and a clear resource ('characters in a search query'), and explicitly notes the query is discarded. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from the sibling tools (e.g., 'memory-key-count' or 'hn-front-count') which involve different inputs. The purpose is immediately clear.

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

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

The description does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It implies a usage context (counting query length) but offers no comparative insight. Given the many sibling tools, this is a gap.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it is a single 7-word sentence revealing nothing about side effects, prerequisites, or return format. The bizarre parameter set (city, zone, feed) implies behaviors—such as weather, fetch, or validation logic—that are completely unexplained in a tool described as a status-code catalog.

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 front-loaded and short, with no wasted words. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness—given the drastic mismatch between the stated purpose and the parameters, the description should have bridged that gap, and its terseness actively contributes to confusion.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is severely insufficient. The description does not explain what the catalog returns, how to invoke it, or why parameters like city, zone, and feed are relevant—all essential context 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 schema already documents every parameter's meaning and the baseline is 3. The description adds zero parameter information, which is acceptable for coverage purposes, though the schema descriptions themselves conflict with the catalog framing (e.g., 'discarded after the call' for city).

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 resource ('catalog of common HTTP status codes') and is not a tautology, which distinguishes it superficially from siblings like fetch-status. However, the stated purpose is disjoint from the actual input schema: all 9 parameters (city, feed, zone, query, ref, host, path, json, url) belong to unrelated domains like weather, validation, and URL normalization, none of which obviously relate to a status-code catalog. This mismatch makes the real purpose genuinely ambiguous to an agent.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus siblings such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The intended selection criteria are left entirely to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It explicitly states 'Prompt discarded,' which transparently communicates that the input prompt is ignored. This is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention that all parameters are discarded (though the schema does), nor does it describe any other edge behaviors like rate limits or side effects. The disclosure is partial but not misleading.

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

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

The description is exceptionally concise, using two short sentences with no redundant words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about discarding the prompt is placed second. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplary model of brevity.

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

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

For a tool that simply returns a fixed template, the description is mostly complete: it states what is returned and that the prompt is ignored. However, it does not describe the content or format of the 'three-step thinking template,' which could be useful for an agent deciding whether to call this tool. Given the lack of an output schema, this missing detail is a notable gap, though the tool's triviality lowers the severity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the descriptions for all nine parameters explicitly mention they are discarded or ignored after a shape check. The tool's description adds nothing about parameters, but since the schema already conveys they are irrelevant, the description does not need to compensate. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter meaning adequately.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('Return a three-step thinking template') and the resource (a template). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'calc-eval' or 'normalize-url' by its unique purpose, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is understandable, but the nature of the template is left vague.

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 other siblings. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only hint is that the prompt is discarded, implying it might be for a canned response, but no explicit usage context is given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description alone should disclose behavior such as output format, validation behavior, or whether it only reads the zone param. The phrase only says 'current time' and gives no behavioral detail, and the apparent mismatch between the timezone purpose and the nine unrelated schema parameters is not addressed.

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

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

The text is only a short fragment, which keeps it concise, but the description is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no annotation support. It lacks structure and essential context, so the conciseness does not 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 nine input parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not specify which parameter supplies the IANA timezone, what the tool returns, or how an agent should choose it among siblings.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: it does not identify which of the nine parameters is actually used for the timezone, nor does it explain the relevance or irrelevance of the other 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 verb and resource: getting the current time for a named IANA timezone. It distinguishes the tool from a zone-listing sibling like iana-zones, but it does not explicitly contrast it with utc-time or other potential alternatives, so some differentiation is left to inference.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the nearby utc-time or iana-zones siblings. It also does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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

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

The description gives no hint that all 9 parameters are ignored and serve only as shape-check placeholders. Without annotations, this is a significant omission. The schema descriptions do note they are discarded, but the tool description itself does not disclose that the tool returns a fixed timestamp regardless of input, which could mislead an agent into passing parameters expecting an effect.

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 zero filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and leaves no room for unnecessary detail. It could not be more succinct while still conveying the core function.

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 inadequate for a tool with 9 parameters that are all ignored. It does not explain that the parameters are irrelevant, nor does it clarify the output format or any limitations. Given the odd parameter list, an agent would be left confused about whether to supply arguments. The tool is simple, but the lack of context about parameter handling makes it 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?

The schema descriptions fully cover parameter semantics (100% coverage), explicitly stating each parameter is discarded after a shape check. The tool description adds no additional meaning, so it does not need to compensate. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the documentation.

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' clearly states the tool returns the current UTC time. It is a specific and unambiguous purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', though the intent is distinct enough that an agent could infer 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where 'utc-time' is preferred over 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', nor any exclusions. An agent has to rely on the name and description alone to decide.

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 fully disclose behavior. It discloses that the body is 'discarded' (i.e., not retained), which is useful, but it omits other behavioral traits an agent might need, such as whether the tool makes network calls, requires auth, has side effects, or is a pure and safe read-only operation. The bare 'discarded' is not enough.

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 exactly two sentences: one stating the purpose, one stating the discard behavior. There is no filler, it is front-loaded with the primary verb, and every sentence adds information. This is the strong point of the 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?

The tool accepts 9 optional parameters and has no output schema or annotations to clarify behavior. The description addresses only JSON validation and the discard behavior, not the purpose or semantics of the other eight fields, nor the return format/success criteria. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently call it.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema; the word 'body' could map to `json` but is not explicitly tied to any parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: check whether a body is valid JSON. It uses a specific verb ('check') and a specific resource ('JSON'), which matches the tool's name and the `json` parameter. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling shape validators (e.g., `domain-shape`, `figma-url-shape`), but the JSON-focused intent is plain.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not say 'use for JSON validation' or 'use `validate-json` instead of `domain-shape` for URL checks.' The sibling tool names suggest related validators, but the description offers no 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not mention that only the city parameter is read, or that other parameters are discarded, nor does it disclose network or rate implications.

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 filler words. The purpose is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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

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

With nine parameters, no output schema, and no guidance about which input is relevant, the description is incomplete. It does not tell the agent that only the city parameter is needed, nor what format the temperature result will take.

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 minimal semantic value—it mentions a city but doesn't explicitly map to the 'city' parameter or clarify that only that parameter is used.

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: getting current temperature for a city, and names the data source (Open-Meteo). This clearly differentiates weather-hint from sibling tools like geo-hint or timezone.

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 weather-hint instead of alternatives such as geo-hint or web-fetch. The description only defines the action, not the context or separation from siblings.

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

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden on behavior. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait—'Body discarded'—and scopes the tool to public URLs. Still, it omits any statement about the port, error cases, network side effects, or how the non-URL parameters are handled, so transparency is minimal.

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 declarative sentences with no filler. Each sentence carries essential information: the core purpose and the fact that the body is discarded, making the description unusually tight and 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 description is plainly undercompleting for a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It does not explain the full parameter acceptance, what is returned per parameter, how to handle errors, or why the other 8 parameters have no mention. It is only a partial snapshot of the tool's actual capability.

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%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description does not add any meaning that the schema doesn't already provide: it does not map explicit parameters to their behavior or disambiguate which parameter is the URL. The tool-level text adds almost nothing 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 names a specific action ('HTTP status and content type') and a resource ('public URL'), which clearly captures the URL case. However, it does not account for the 9 unrelated schema parameters (e.g., city, json, zone) and does not differentiate against sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, leaving the tool's overall purpose 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 versus its many siblings (fetch-status, browser-url-ok, normalize-url, etc.). There is no explicit context or exclusion, so an agent cannot determine when to select it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The only trait mentioned is that the title is 'discarded after the call,' which is vague and fails to explain side effects (e.g., whether the tool is read-only, makes network calls, or returns a boolean). It does not contradict any annotations (none exist), but is far too thin to be transparent.

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

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

The text is a single sentence and is front-loaded with the main action, which is concise. However, the extreme brevity omits critical details (how to invoke it, what parameters matter, expected return). Conciseness is only valuable when it doesn't sacrifice necessary information; here it does, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, none required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is radically incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose of the parameters, how they relate to the title, what the result looks like, or the conditions for a successful call. An agent has no way to correctly invoke this tool based solely on the description and schema.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, each parameter description is generic and unrelated to the stated Wikipedia-title purpose (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint,' 'Git ref name'). The description provides no mapping from these parameters to the title check, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. An agent cannot infer which parameter carries the Wikipedia title, making the semantics effectively opaque.

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 ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists') and a specific resource, which distinguishes it conceptually from siblings like browser-url-ok. However, it fails to explain how the title is supplied—none of the 9 schema parameters is named 'title'—so an agent cannot map the purpose to the actual input parameters. This ambiguity prevents a higher 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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no scenarios, and no exclusions. The description only says what it does, not when it should be chosen over any of the 27 sibling tools. No guidance is provided for context of use.

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