Lux to foot-candles

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 mentions 'Task text discarded' but does not clarify what task text or which parameter it refers to, nor does it disclose side effects, access requirements, or rate limits. The tool appears to return artifacts but gives no details on reversibility or external calls.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and outputs. The final 'Task text discarded' is ambiguous and undermines clarity, but overall the structure is efficient. It earns a 4 for brevity despite the confusing last clause.

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 but the description gives no guidance on when to supply them or what they are for. It lists return artifacts but does not explain how they relate to the inputs. With no output schema, the description should provide more context to enable correct invocation, and it falls short.

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 about the nine parameters; it does not explain how they are used or which are relevant. The confusing 'Task text discarded' does not map to any parameter. The description provides no additional semantics beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Find'), the specific resource ('a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), and the expected outputs ('CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, and remote MCP hops'). This distinguishes it from the many sibling utility tools, which are unrelated.

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 exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools. An agent would not know when this is the appropriate choice over, say, web-fetch or normalize-url.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic. Expression discarded.' which gives no information about side effects, output format, error behavior, or how the parameters relate to the arithmetic. The statement about discarding the expression is vague and not backed by schema details. It does not clarify what happens to the input parameters or what the tool returns.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic', but it is under-specified and not useful. Conciseness is only beneficial when the content is informative; here it omits essential details, making the brevity a drawback rather than a strength.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, none required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is utterly inadequate for an agent to call it correctly. It doesn't explain the tool's core function, the role of each parameter, expected input formats, or the return value. Given the complexity, a comprehensive description is necessary, and this one provides almost nothing.

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 each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). However, the description adds no value beyond that and actually misleads by claiming arithmetic evaluation when the parameters are unrelated. It fails to explain how any parameter contributes to the purported arithmetic, so the description degrades rather than enhances 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 and resource ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic'), but the input schema has no arithmetic parameters (e.g., a, b, expression). It instead contains unrelated fields like ref, url, city, etc. The phrase 'Expression discarded' further confuses the purpose—does it evaluate and return nothing? The description does not align with the schema, making it hard for an agent to know what this tool actually does or how it differs from siblings.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine if this is appropriate for a given task from the description alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral hint is 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy note, but it says nothing about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what 'classification' entails. The description fails to disclose any meaningful behavior beyond that.

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

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

The description is only two sentences and technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks substance and does not earn its place because it conveys almost no useful information to the 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?

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, its input expectations, its output format, or how it relates to the 28 sibling tools. An agent has no way to 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. Each parameter has a short description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), which adds some meaning beyond the bare parameter name. However, the tool description itself adds nothing about parameters, and the schema descriptions are minimal, not explaining how they contribute to classification.

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

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

The description says 'Show how this request is classified' without specifying what a 'request' is, what 'classified' means, or what the tool actually does. It does not name a clear verb-resource pair and does not differentiate itself from any of the 28 sibling tools, making it essentially tautological with the tool name 'compatibility'.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess whether this is the right tool for a given task.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the path is discarded, but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, what is returned, or whether any parameters are ignored vs used. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 (two sentences), which is concise, but for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Every word earns its place, but crucial information is omitted, so it fails to be appropriately sized.

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 output schema, no annotations, and a vague two-sentence description, the definition is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool actually does with the parameters, what the expected input format is, what the return value looks like, or how to interpret the 'shape check' behavior. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has its own description, which raises the baseline to 3. However, the tool description adds nothing about how these parameters relate to Figma URL parsing; it only mentions the URL and path implicitly. The parameter descriptions themselves are clear but appear disconnected from the stated purpose, and the description does not help map them to expected usage.

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

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

States a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), and adds a behavioral note about the path being discarded. However, it does not explain what 'parse' yields (e.g., extracted components, validation result), and the 9-parameter schema includes many unrelated fields (city, feed, json) that muddy the tool's actual purpose. The clarity is acceptable but far from precise.

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 like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or domain-shape. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no idea when to select figma-url-shape 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'No disk access,' which is a key safety trait that distinguishes this from tools that might touch the filesystem. However, it does not disclose what 'looks safe' means, the return format, or whether it validates syntax or existence, leaving some ambiguity.

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, consisting of two short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the primary action and immediately notes the key behavioral constraint (no disk access). 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 incomplete given the tool's complexity. Although the schema documents all parameters, the description only addresses 'path' and ignores the other 8 parameters, leaving an agent uncertain whether they are relevant or how to use them. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the other inputs relate to the check, creating a significant gap.

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 9 parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, and it does not explain why a file-path checker accepts parameters like 'ref', 'url', 'city', etc. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description fails to clarify the role of the extra 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' It names the specific resource (a path) and the action (check), making it distinct from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, which focus on URLs and shapes. The name 'file-path-ok' reinforces 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-checking tools. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference any alternatives. An agent would have to infer from the name alone, which is insufficient given the large sibling 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 carries the full burden. It only says 'Titles discarded' but does not disclose whether the tool makes a live network request, how it handles failures, whether it is rate-limited, or what the output structure (just an integer?) looks like. The parameters are all optional and some are explicitly 'discarded', but the tool's side effects are 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 only two sentences, front-loads the core action, and wastes no words. However, it is so brief that it omits essential context; this is borderline under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. An agent has no idea what parameters to pass (if any), what the return value is beyond a count, or how to interpret the 'discarded' parameters. The tool's actual behavior is 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, every parameter description refers to shape checks or discarding (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') and none relate to counting HN stories. The description adds no clarification about how these parameters affect the count. The schema semantics actively conflict with the tool's stated purpose, so the description fails to compensate.

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 precise resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), and adds the qualifier 'Titles discarded' to clarify the return type. This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from generic fetch tools like fetch-status or web-fetch.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as fetch-status or web-fetch, which might also retrieve HN data. There are no alternative names, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer when this count is needed.

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. It discloses that only group counts are returned (not full content), but fails to explain that most schema parameters are discarded after checks (as noted in their descriptions) or which parameter supplies the robots.txt URL. It also doesn't mention error behavior, rate limits, or that the tool might ignore inputs like 'city' or 'json'.

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?

One sentence with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded. However, it is too terse to convey essential parameter mappings, so conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness.

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, a single sentence is grossly insufficient. It doesn't explain which parameters are actually used, what 'group counts' means, or how the tool handles the other parameters (discarding them). The mismatch between the narrow description and broad schema leaves an agent unable to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the tool description adds no clarity about which parameters are relevant. The description says 'fetch a public robots.txt' but doesn't indicate whether 'url' or 'host' is the source. The schema descriptions themselves are generic (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') and don't align with robots.txt, so the description fails to bridge the 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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (public robots.txt) and specifies output (group counts only). It is not a tautology and distinguishes from generic web-fetch or fetch-status tools. However, the schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) that are not mentioned, creating ambiguity about whether the tool is solely for robots.txt.

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 siblings like web-fetch or fetch-status. It doesn't mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description implies usage for robots.txt inspection but gives no decision criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Key discarded' but there is no key parameter, and it fails to describe return values, side effects, error behavior, or whether the tool performs any network access. The 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 very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified and misleading. It does not earn its place because it provides no actionable information beyond what the tool name already implies, and it lacks any structural guidance for the parameters.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain the tool's scope, return format, invocation method, or how to handle the diverse parameter set, making correct usage impossible.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no parameter meaning, and the schema parameters themselves are unrelated to the stated Jira key purpose. For example, 'city' and 'feed' have no connection to a Jira key shape, so the description does not clarify which parameter (if any) holds the key or how the check works.

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

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

The description says 'Check a Jira issue key shape' but the input schema has no parameter for a Jira key—it includes ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query. This is misleading and essentially restates the tool name without clarifying what the tool actually does or how it differs from siblings like domain-shape or github-repo-shape.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria for the 9 parameters, leaving the agent with no clue about the appropriate use case.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the body is discarded, but does not specify the return format, error behavior, rate limits, or why the other parameters exist. This is insufficient for a tool with such a broad parameter set.

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 brief (two short sentences), which is concise, but it lacks structure and crucial context. It is not front-loaded with the most important information because the actual purpose is unclear given the mismatch with parameters.

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

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

This tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is grossly incomplete—it does not clarify which parameters are relevant, what the return value looks like, or how to invoke it correctly. An agent would be unable to use this tool reliably.

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 already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

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

The description states 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL' which is a specific verb and resource, but the input schema contains nine parameters including city, json, path, zone, and query that are unrelated to this purpose. This makes the tool's actual function ambiguous and fails to differentiate it from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions. 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.

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 only mentions counting keys and discarding values, but does not disclose whether the tool makes external calls, requires permissions, or has side effects. The schema descriptions for parameters like 'url', 'city', and 'feed' suggest additional behaviors that are unexplained, creating confusion about what the tool actually does.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids fluff and is appropriately short. However, brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail, making it slightly under-specified rather than purely concise.

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

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

With nine parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not state which parameter is the JSON input, what the return value looks like, or how the tool behaves with multiple parameters. An agent would have no idea how to correctly invoke this tool for counting keys.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions conflict with the stated purpose. For example, 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate', not as input for key counting. The description does not clarify which parameter is the JSON object or how the other eight parameters relate to the operation. It fails to add meaningful linkage between the tool's purpose and its 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 specific action ('Count keys in a JSON object') and notes that values are discarded. This is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape or validate-json. However, it does not specify how the JSON object is provided, leaving ambiguity about which parameter holds the input.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention contexts, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like validate-json or search-query-len. The description offers no selection criteria.

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

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

The description discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful for the url parameter. But it does not explain the behavior of the other 8 parameters, nor describe the output format. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short for a tool with this many inputs.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loads the primary purpose. However, given the tool has 9 parameters and no annotations, this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient 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 annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the role of non-URL parameters, the return value, or edge cases. The one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly across all its 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are vague or contradictory. For instance, 'city' is for a weather hint and 'ref' is a Git ref name, both seemingly unrelated to URL normalization. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify how these parameters interact with the main 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 states a clear primary purpose: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' However, the schema lists 9 unrelated parameters (e.g., city, ref, zone) with no explanation of how they relate to URL normalization, so the tool's full scope is ambiguous. It also does not differentiate from siblings like browser-url-ok or domain-shape.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state conditions for selection, mention prerequisites, or exclude scenarios. The description only describes the core action without contextualizing it among the many sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It states 'No browser is launched,' which is a useful trait, but it does not explain what happens for the many parameters (e.g., whether they are validated, what errors occur, whether any network access is made). The schema notes some parameters are 'discarded,' but that is in the schema, not the description. The description lacks detail on side effects, return values, or failure modes.

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), but the brevity is not effective because it omits critical information. The first sentence states the purpose, but the second is a behavior note. It lacks any structure to help the agent understand the tool's multi-parameter nature, and it does not front-load the most relevant details for the agent's decision-making.

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, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how different parameters are processed, or what success/failure looks like. The tool appears to be a multi-purpose shape checker, but the description only mentions URLs, leaving agents unable to predict behavior for other inputs. This is inadequate for safe and 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 documents all parameters adequately (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema; it does not synthesize how parameters relate or which are primary. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description provides no extra value.

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

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

The description says 'Check whether a URL can be opened' but the input schema includes many non-URL parameters (city, json, path, zone, query), suggesting the tool actually checks a variety of shapes. This misalignment makes the purpose unclear and potentially misleading for non-URL inputs. The phrase 'No browser is launched' adds a behavioral note but doesn't clarify the overall 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 26 sibling tools, many of which overlap (e.g., browser-url-ok, fetch-status, normalize-url, validate-json). The description does not mention any alternatives, exclusions, or conditions for selection, leaving the agent without 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Query discarded,' implying no persistence of the query, but says nothing about the fate of the other parameters, potential side effects, or what the tool actually does with them. Given the tool accepts 9 parameters, this is a significant transparency gap.

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

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

The description is extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loads the primary purpose. Each sentence is functional: one states the action, the other states a side-effect. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential information, which is a trade-off, but for conciseness itself 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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what happens with the other parameters, what the return value is (presumably a character count, but not stated), error conditions, or any edge cases. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool for non-query parameters without additional 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 provides 100% coverage, describing each parameter individually. The description adds little beyond the schema, only implying that 'query' is the parameter being counted. It does not clarify the role of the other 8 parameters or how they interact, so it fails to add meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema already offers.

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 ('Count characters in a search query') and identifies the resource (search query). However, it fails to acknowledge the other 8 parameters in the schema, making the tool's actual scope ambiguous. It also does not differentiate it from sibling tools like memory-key-count that also count characters, so the purpose is only partially clear.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of conditions or prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description does not indicate that it is specifically for search query length checks or how it relates to other shape-check tools, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the body is discarded, but says nothing about output format, error behavior, rate limits, or what happens with other parameters. This is minimal disclosure for a validation 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 only two short sentences, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information about how to invoke the tool and what the expected input is. A tool with nine parameters requires more explicit structure.

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 drastically incomplete. It does not explain which parameter is the body, what the return value is, or how the other parameters are used. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the given 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 covers all parameters with individual descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful context beyond the schema; it only references a 'body' without mapping it to the 'json' parameter. No extra value is provided.

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 validity of JSON) and a resource ('a body'), but it is ambiguous which of the nine schema parameters corresponds to that body. It does not distinguish from sibling tools such as file-path-ok or fetch-status, so an agent cannot immediately tell when to prefer this tool.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. An agent must infer usage solely from the generic phrasing, 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 provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states the function and data source, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, network calls, side effects, or how the other parameters are handled. The agent cannot infer safety or 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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It efficiently conveys the core 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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description only addresses the weather use case via 'city'. It does not explain the purpose of the other 8 parameters or indicate the tool's broader multi-hint functionality, leaving a significant gap for an agent to understand the full tool 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 description coverage is 100% for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions 'city', which the schema already describes in detail.

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 function: returning current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. It is specific with a verb and resource. However, the schema includes 9 parameters, most unrelated to weather, suggesting the tool has broader functionality that the description does not capture, which slightly reduces clarity about the overall tool 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction on 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Title discarded after the call,' which is a minor data-handling detail, but fails to disclose whether it makes network calls, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The agent cannot assess safety or impact.

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

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

The description is only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It is efficient and without fluff, though the second sentence about discarding the title is minor and not essential. It earns a high score for conciseness.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or which parameter is the title. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate to the check; it does not even identify which parameter holds the Wikipedia title. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description states a specific verb (check) and resource (Wikipedia title existence), which is clear and distinct from a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from sibling validation tools like browser-url-ok or file-path-ok, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where it is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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