Language zh

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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful side-effect note. However, it does not clarify how the extra parameters (host, json, zone) are handled or whether the tool makes an HTTP request. Behavior around these inputs remains opaque.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded, using two sentences to convey the main purpose. It could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose, but overall it is well-structured.

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

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

The description is incomplete given the complexity of the schema. It does not explain the purpose of the additional parameters (host, json, zone), leaving gaps in understanding what the tool actually does beyond returning URL metadata.

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

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

The schema provides short descriptions for each parameter, but they do not align with the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'json' is described as validation text, but validation is not mentioned in the main description. The semantics of the parameters are poorly integrated with the tool's core function.

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 host, scheme, and HTTP status) for a URL, and notes that page content is not stored. However, the input schema includes parameters like json and zone that are not mentioned in the description, creating ambiguity about the tool's full purpose.

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

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or status-catalog. It implies usage when host/scheme/status are needed, but no clear guidance or exclusions are provided.

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

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No identifiers are retained,' which gives a privacy guarantee but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what happens to the request data, or if there are any side effects.

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

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

The description is a single, succinct sentence with no redundant information. It is extremely concise and well-structured, delivering the core purpose without any fluff.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (four optional parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate to convey the basic function. However, it lacks context about what 'classified' means in terms of categories, and it does not address potential ambiguity with sibling tools, making it partially 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for each parameter (url, host, json, zone) covering the meaning. The tool description adds no additional context or constraints beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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

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

The description states a clear verb ('Show') and resource ('how this request is classified'), indicating the tool categorizes requests. It is distinct from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, though it could be more specific about what classification categories are returned.

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 the sibling alternatives (e.g., citation, domain-shape, iana-zones). It lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent 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?

There are no annotations describing side effects, safety, or resource usage. The description only says 'Split a hostname into labels' but does not disclose what happens with the other inputs (url, json, timezone), whether it performs network calls, or whether it has side effects. This lack of transparency is especially problematic given the mismatched schema.

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

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

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, but it is incomplete and includes ambiguous wording ('without WHOIS or data'). It does not provide enough structure or detail to be useful, and the brevity comes at the expense of necessary 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?

Given the complex mismatch between the description and the parameters, the tool is far from complete. There is no output schema, no explanation of how the parameters interact, and no guidance on expected behavior. The description leaves too many critical gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, but they are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose. 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'json' as 'JSON text to validate', and 'timezone' as 'IANA timezone name'—none of these relate to splitting a hostname into labels. Only 'host' seems relevant. The description adds no clarification.

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

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

The description states the core action ('Split a hostname into labels') but the phrase 'without WHOIS or data' is unclear, and the input schema includes unrelated parameters such as url, json, and timezone. This muddles the tool's actual purpose and does not clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json.

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

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

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it explain when splitting hostnames is appropriate. The presence of irrelevant parameters adds confusion rather than clarifying usage.

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 'common IANA timezone names' without stating what the tool does with them (e.g., returns a list, validates a zone, or transforms a URL). The schema suggests unrelated operations, creating a serious mismatch that undermines 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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and fails to convey essential information. It does not front-load the primary purpose or provide any hierarchical details. Conciseness is not a substitute for completeness when the content is so vague.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the relationship between parameters and the stated timezone functionality, or any operational context. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but the tool description does not connect any of these parameters (url, host, json, zone) to the stated purpose of timezone names. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema and fails to explain how 'zone' relates to 'common IANA timezone names'. The mismatch reduces the baseline from 3 to 2.

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 resource ('common IANA timezone names') but lacks an explicit action verb and does not clarify whether the tool returns a list, accepts a zone, or does something else. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', which also relate to timezones. The schema's parameters (url, host, json) are unrelated to timezone names, making the purpose even more 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 alternatives such as 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The only hint ('for clock calls') is vague and does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no basis to select this tool over siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a network fetch but doesn't mention error handling, redirects, timeouts, or the exact shape of 'group counts'. It also doesn't clarify whether the operation is read-only, though that is implied. This is a significant transparency gap for a network tool.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and result. However, it is so brief that it omits critical operational details, so while it earns points for conciseness, it's not a 5 due to incompleteness.

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

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

This tool involves a network fetch but has no output schema, no annotations, and a confusing parameter set. The description does not explain the return format beyond 'group counts only', nor does it address failure modes or parameter usage. An agent cannot reliably call this tool without additional assumptions, making it inadequate.

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% coverage with descriptions, but those descriptions are generic (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') and do not map to the robots.txt use case. The tool description does not explain which parameter (likely 'url') should be used or how the other parameters (host, json, zone) relate to fetching robots.txt. Thus the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the generic schema.

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

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

The description states a clear action (fetch a public robots.txt) and the specific result (return group counts only). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, which operate on different resources. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope exclusions, so it's not a 5.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. An agent would have to infer the intended usage from the name alone, 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?

There are no annotations and no description of side effects, return behavior, or operational impact. The tool's behavior is entirely opaque.

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

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

The description is extremely short and free of fluff, but its brevity sacrifices essential information. It is concise but not adequately informative.

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

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

With no output schema, no annotations, and only a fragmentary description, the tool lacks essential context. An agent cannot determine what inputs are for, what outputs to expect, or how the tool fits into a larger task.

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 each parameter has a description, those descriptions relate to URL normalization, validation, and timezone concerns that have no evident connection to the stated 'ISO 639 language tag zh' purpose. The parameter meanings do not coherently map to the tool's supposed function.

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 'ISO 639 language tag zh' provides no verb or action and does not explain what the tool actually does. It merely names a standard and a code, making it impossible to distinguish this tool from a simple constant or data value.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone. The description offers no context for selecting this tool in a workflow.

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 discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires any specific input validation, and no annotations are provided.

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

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

The description is concise but fails to address the additional schema parameters, making it efficient yet incomplete. It communicates the core behavior but omits necessary details for correct usage.

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

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

Given the schema contains four parameters with distinct descriptions (url, host, json, zone), the description only covers a fraction of the input space. It does not explain how the extra parameters relate to the tool's stated purpose, leaving the tool under-specified.

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

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

Only the 'url' parameter is implicitly described via the tool's purpose. The 'host', 'json', and 'zone' parameters are completely unexplained, leaving their roles and expected formats unclear.

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 returns origin, host, and path for a URL, but the schema includes four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with only url implied, creating ambiguity about the actual purpose and scope.

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 sibling tools (e.g., citation, validate-json). The description does not mention alternatives or conditions for use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects or read-only behavior. The description only says 'Short catalog' and gives no indication of whether the tool performs lookups, checks, modifications, or has any external effects.

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

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

The description is extremely short, which is concise, but it omits essential details about the tool's function and parameters. It is front-loaded with the subject matter, but the brevity sacrifices clarity and usefulness.

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

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

The description is too minimal to be contextually complete. It does not explain what the catalog contains, how to query it, what output to expect, or how the four seemingly unrelated parameters are used. Given the absence of an output schema, the description leaves the tool's behavior almost entirely unspecified.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone), so schema coverage is 100%. However, the tool description adds no information about how these parameters relate to the catalog of HTTP status codes, leaving their purpose ambiguous.

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

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

The description states the tool is a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which identifies the subject matter but lacks an action-oriented verb or explanation of what the tool actually does with that catalog. It does not distinguish how this tool should be used relative to its name or purpose.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what scenarios it is appropriate for, or how it relates to sibling tools such as validate-json or timezone. The description provides no context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the high-level function and does not disclose any behavioral details such as return format, error handling, side effects, or whether the time is fetched live. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's actual behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the core function. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary detail, making it easy to scan and understand.

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

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

The description is too brief to be complete given the unexpected parameters. It does not clarify why 'url', 'host', and 'json' are included, nor does it explain the output (e.g., time string, offset, or full timestamp). This leaves the agent without enough context to use the tool correctly, especially given the schema anomalies.

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

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

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the descriptions are mismatched with the tool's purpose. Parameters like 'url', 'host', and 'json' have descriptions unrelated to timezone lookup (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'), which seems copied from other tools. Only 'zone' aligns with the purpose, making the parameter semantics misleading.

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 function: 'Current time in a named IANA timezone.' It uses a specific verb ('get' implied) and resource (time in a timezone), distinguishing it from generic time tools and aligning with the 'zone' parameter.

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

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

The description does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like 'utc-time' or 'iana-zones'. It only implies usage for a named timezone, leaving the decision to the agent without clear guidance on other available options.

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 reveals only the output (a UTC timestamp) but nothing about the tool's behavior, such as whether it accepts optional parameters, how it handles the provided schema fields (url, host, json, zone), or any side effects. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure, which it does not meet.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single short sentence that directly states the primary output. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, it omits any mention of the parameters or usage context, which detracts from its overall effectiveness but does not inflate its length.

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

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

Given the tool's apparent simplicity, the description is too terse. It fails to explain the purpose of the four schema parameters, any optional behavior, or how this tool relates to the sibling tools. There is no output schema, and the description does not provide enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool beyond a trivial call with no arguments.

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 defines four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with descriptions, but these are completely unrelated to a tool returning a current UTC timestamp. The parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') appear to be copy-pasted from other tools and provide no meaningful semantics for this tool. The description does not explain how or whether these parameters affect the output.

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's output, which is a current UTC timestamp. It is implicitly distinct from sibling tools like timezone and iana-zones, which deal with timezone conversions and lists. However, it lacks a verb form and does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives.

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 sibling tools such as timezone or iana-zones. The description does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or context in which this tool should be preferred.

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 mentions that the body is discarded, which hints at no persistence, but it does not state what happens on invalid JSON (e.g., return value, error behavior) or whether any side effects occur. No annotations are provided to fill this gap.

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

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

The top-level description is brief and to the point, with the second sentence adding useful information about the body being discarded. No extraneous words are present in the description itself, though the parameter descriptions are verbose and misleading.

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 lacks essential context: it does not explain what 'body' refers to, what the input parameters (especially the irrelevant ones) are for, what the return value or output format is, or how to invoke the tool. The tool is not self-contained or comprehensible enough for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

The parameter descriptions are grossly mismatched with the tool's purpose: 'url', 'host', and 'zone' are described as being about URL normalization, hostnames, and timezones—none relevant to JSON validation. Only 'json' is clearly relevant, but its description is redundant and confusing. The schema does not meaningfully explain the parameters.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('check whether a body is valid JSON') but the resource is vague ('a body'), and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog beyond the verb. The tool name helps, but the description alone is only moderately 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any alternative, nor any indication of prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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