Miles to kilometers

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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: page content is not stored. However, it does not mention network requests, rate limits, error handling, or any side effects. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially addresses behavioral 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 concise, using two short sentences to convey the primary function and a key constraint. No unnecessary words or repetition; it is well-structured 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?

The description gives a clear overview of the main function but omits any context for the json and zone parameters, which are part of the input schema. Since there is no output schema, the description does not specify the return format beyond 'host, scheme, and HTTP status,' leaving some operational details 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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional insight into parameter meaning or relationships; it only references 'URL' while ignoring the json and zone parameters, which appear unrelated to the stated purpose.

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

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

The description clearly states the core function ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL') and adds a distinguishing note ('Page content is not stored'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog, and the presence of unrelated parameters (json, zone) creates some ambiguity.

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 conditions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the function 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?

The phrase 'No identifiers are retained' discloses a privacy-related behavioral trait, which is useful. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; other aspects like side effects, permissions, or rate limits are not mentioned, so transparency is only partial.

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

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

The description is very short, which is concise, but it omits essential information about the tool's purpose and usage. It is not well-structured for conveying meaning; the two sentences are brief yet insufficiently 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?

Given the tool has four parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical context about what the classification result looks like, how parameters are used, and what problem it solves. The description is too incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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

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

The schema descriptions for parameters (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate') provide some meaning, giving a baseline of 3. The tool description itself adds no further clarification on how parameters relate to the classification, so it does not exceed the 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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify what kind of classification is performed or what resource is involved. It lacks a clear verb-resource pairing and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate-json' or 'normalize-url'.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about typical use cases or scenarios, leaving the agent to guess when 'compatibility' should be invoked.

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 only behavioral hint is 'without WHOIS or ownership data,' implying the tool does not perform network lookups. However, there are no annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint) and no other disclosure of side effects, error behavior, or output format. The mismatched schema descriptions also create misleading expectations about 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 front-loads the primary action and resource. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is easy to read. However, the brevity is undermined by the overly verbose and irrelevant schema descriptions, though that is not counted against this specific dimension.

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 definition is incomplete and misleading due to the mismatched schema. The description does not explain how the parameters relate to splitting a hostname, and the parameter descriptions seem copied from other tools. This prevents the agent from understanding how to correctly invoke the tool, making the overall context 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 parameters (url, host, json, timezone) have descriptions that are completely unrelated to the tool's stated purpose of splitting a hostname. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'json' as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check,' which are clearly not relevant to domain-shape. This makes the parameter semantics nonsensical and highly confusing.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's primary action ('Split a hostname into labels') and resource (hostname), which is specific and unambiguous. The added qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' helps set expectations, but the purpose could be slightly more precise regarding what constitutes 'labels'.

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 compared to alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or scenarios where domain-shape is preferred over sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, 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?

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose side effects, return format, validation behavior, or whether it modifies anything. The description is too sparse to inform an agent about runtime 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 very short and contains no filler, but it is too terse to be useful. It lacks a clear verb and does not organize information about behavior or parameters in a helpful way.

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?

There is no output schema and no explanation of what the caller should expect in return. The description does not cover important context such as whether this tool returns a list, validates input, or is intended for a specific workflow.

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 has descriptions for all four parameters, the description does not explain how 'url', 'host', or 'json' relate to IANA timezone names. Only 'zone' is obviously relevant, leaving the other parameters confusing and unexplained.

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 rather than an explicit verb action, so it does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., list, return, or validate). It vaguely mentions 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' but does not specify the resource or outcome.

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 closely related sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. No conditions, alternatives, or context 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?

The description reveals the core behavior (fetching and counting groups) but omits any side effects, error handling, or permissions. More critically, the parameter descriptions are clearly mismatched, making the tool's expected inputs misleading and undermining 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 concise and to the point, using a single sentence that directly conveys the tool's function without extraneous detail.

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 such as what constitutes a 'group' or how the counts are returned. Given the mismatched parameter descriptions, the tool is far from complete; a user would be confused about how to actually 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?

The parameter descriptions in the schema are entirely inconsistent with the tool's purpose: 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'json' as 'JSON text to validate', and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name'. These descriptions actively mislead and provide no accurate meaning for a robots.txt inspection tool.

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 ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and a specific result ('return group counts only'), clearly distinguishing this tool from generic URL or validation tools.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, and the sibling tools list is not referenced. Users are left to infer the appropriate context without any explicit direction.

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

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

There are no annotations describing side effects, permissions, or safety. The description does not disclose whether the tool performs read-only operations, modifies data, or has any external effects, leaving the agent without essential behavioral expectations.

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?

While the description is extremely short, it is not appropriately sized because it omits critical information. The single phrase 'Miles to kilometers' is insufficient and does not clarify the tool's operation or parameter usage, so it fails the conciseness test of being usefully brief.

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 a complete mismatch between its name/description and its input schema. The description does not provide the necessary context for an agent to understand how the tool works, what inputs to provide, or what outputs to expect, making the tool effectively unusable without additional assumptions.

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 lists url, host, json, and zone with generic descriptions, but the tool name and description imply a miles-to-kilometers conversion. The description fails to explain how these parameters relate to the conversion, making each parameter's role undefined and contradictory.

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 'Miles to kilometers' suggests a unit conversion tool, but the input schema expects url, host, json, and zone—none of which relate to miles or kilometers. This severely obscures the actual purpose and makes the tool's functionality ambiguous and misleading.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., citation, validate-json, timezone). The description does not explain the intended use case or the context in which this tool should be selected.

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 the input transformation (dropping query/fragment), but it does not disclose how the extra input parameters (host, json, zone) are handled, whether they are ignored, or any error behavior. With no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant content. It is very 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?

The definition is incomplete for correct invocation because the schema/param mismatch is unexplained. It also lacks output format details (how origin, host, and path are returned) and any error semantics, despite having no output schema to fall back on.

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 lists four params, but the description only supports 'url'. The param descriptions are contradictory: 'host' is described as an input while the tool returns a host, and 'json'/'zone' imply unrelated functionality. This is actively misleading for invocation.

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 the origin, host, and path of a URL and drops query/fragment. It lacks explicit mention of 'normalization' or comparison to sibling tools, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

Usage is implied by the function itself—use when URL components are needed—but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools like citation or domain-shape, nor any conditions/exclusions.

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

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

The description provides no information about side effects, permissions, read-only behavior, or data sensitivity. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to disclose any behavioral characteristics.

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 (one short sentence), which is concise in length, but it omits essential action and context. It is not well-structured for an agent to understand what to do with it, so conciseness does not compensate for the lack of 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?

The tool description and schema are internally inconsistent. The description talks about HTTP status codes while the schema expects URL, host, JSON, and timezone parameters. This severe mismatch renders the context incomplete and confusing, providing no coherent picture of the tool's function.

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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) are completely unrelated to the description's subject of HTTP status codes. The parameter descriptions seem to belong to a different tool. This mismatch makes the parameter semantics almost meaningless for the intended purpose.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase ('Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') without an action verb. It indicates the subject matter (HTTP status codes) but not what the tool does (e.g., returns, lists, or looks up codes). The purpose is therefore vague and not actionable.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions under which it should be chosen over other tools. No alternative tools are referenced.

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, read-only behavior, or network access. The description does not disclose whether the tool performs any state-changing operations or if it is a safe, read-only lookup.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no extraneous words or repetition. It is easily scannable and to the point.

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 does not explain which parameter to use, how to format the timezone name, or what output format to expect. The mismatched schema parameters create additional ambiguity, making the tool description incomplete for reliable 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 input schema includes url, host, json, and zone, but only zone is relevant to the description. The parameter descriptions for url, host, and json appear copied from other tools and are misleading in this context. The description does not clarify that these extra parameters are irrelevant or ignored.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the resource as the current time in a named IANA timezone, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like utc-time. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'gets', so it is slightly less direct than ideal.

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 such as utc-time or iana-zones. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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 is minimal and does not disclose whether parameters are accepted or ignored. The schema lists unrelated optional parameters, creating 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 very short and avoids fluff, but it may be too terse given the mismatched schema. Additional context about parameters would improve usefulness without sacrificing 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 is incomplete in context: the schema seems copied from other tools, and the description does not reconcile this. There is no output schema or parameter guidance, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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

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

The description adds no meaning to the schema parameters. The schema properties (url, host, json, zone) appear unrelated to a UTC timestamp tool, and the description does not clarify their role.

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 the current UTC timestamp, which distinguishes it from related timezone tools. It is concise and specific, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like timezone or iana-zones. The description does not mention any selection criteria or 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?

The description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The phrase 'body is discarded' suggests no persistence, but there is no explanation of what happens after validation or any potential 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 very brief but fails to convey essential information. It lacks a clear structure and does not front-load the most critical details about the tool's operation.

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 no output schema and the description does not mention return values, error handling, or any post-validation behavior. The agent has no idea what to expect after calling the tool.

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

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

The parameter descriptions are copied from other tools (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' for url) and are not aligned with the stated JSON validation purpose. There is no clear explanation of how each parameter relates to the tool's 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 'Check whether a body is valid JSON' but the parameters include url, host, json, and zone, which are unrelated to JSON validation. This mismatch makes the tool's actual purpose ambiguous and potentially misleading.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url or status-catalog. The lack of any usage context leaves the agent without direction for selecting this tool.

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