MIME pdf

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only notes that the key is discarded, which hints at non-persistence but doesn't clarify whether the tool performs any side effects, requires authentication, or returns a simple boolean. The behavioral profile is almost entirely undisclosed.

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

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

The description is very short (one sentence), but conciseness without content is under-specification. It fails to front-load essential information like the input parameter, and the vague 'Key discarded' wastes the only sentence on an unclear behavioral note.

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 required fields, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot determine the tool's purpose, input requirements, or expected result. The complexity of the schema demands far more explanation than provided.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, each parameter is described generically (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL'), and none is tied to the Jira key concept. The description adds no semantic link between the parameters and the tool's stated purpose, so an agent cannot know which parameter to populate.

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

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

The description states a verb ('Check') and a resource ('Jira issue key shape'), but it never identifies which of the 9 schema parameters carries the key. The phrase 'Key discarded' adds confusion rather than clarity, and the tool cannot be distinguished from siblings like domain-shape or github-repo-shape without more specificity.

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 doesn't mention that it's for Jira key validation, nor does it explain how the key is provided (e.g., extracted from a ref, URL, or query). The sibling list includes similar shape-checking tools, but no differentiation is given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Values discarded,' which hints that values are not returned, but it does not explain what happens to the other parameters, whether the operation is read-only, or what the response looks like. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is severely insufficient.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. It lacks structure and does not clarify the primary input or usage pattern. It is not appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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

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

The description is incomplete for the tool's complexity. It does not explain which parameter represents the JSON object, how the other parameters are used, or what the output format is. There is no output schema, and the description does not compensate for this gap. An agent would struggle to call 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), each with context like 'discarded after the shape check.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. However, the parameter descriptions themselves suggest the tool does validation, which contradicts the stated purpose of counting keys.

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 a side effect ('Values discarded'), but it does not indicate which of the 9 parameters is the JSON object. The parameters include unrelated inputs like ref, url, city, and host, making it ambiguous how to invoke the tool. It also does not differentiate it from sibling tools like 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine when this tool is preferable to validate-json or other shape-checking tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the core function and does not disclose error handling, validation of the zone parameter, or the fact that the other 8 parameters are irrelevant and should be ignored. This leaves important behavioral context unaddressed.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though extremely terse; given the tool's simple function, this conciseness is appropriate, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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

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

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the presence of the unrelated parameters, nor does it describe the return format or any error conditions. For a tool that appears to have a very specific purpose, this is insufficient context for an agent to use it 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'IANA timezone name' for the zone parameter. More critically, it fails to clarify the purpose of the other 8 parameters, which appear unrelated and could confuse an agent. The description does not compensate for the schema's clutter.

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 time in a named IANA timezone' is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the function. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like utc-time (UTC-specific) and iana-zones (listing zones), as it explicitly focuses on a named timezone.

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

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

The description implies usage for timezone lookups but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over utc-time or iana-zones. There is no guidance on exclusions, so the agent must infer from the name and description.

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 does disclose that the body is discarded, which is valuable, but it omits other behavioral aspects such as redirect handling, timeouts, error semantics, or the fact that many parameters are discarded after shape checks. The single sentence covers only the most obvious 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, well-structured sentence that states the core purpose and a critical caveat (body discarded). It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no filler.

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

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

The tool accepts 9 parameters, but the description only mentions a URL, leaving the agent unclear about how the other parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) are used. With no output schema, the return format is also unspecified. For a tool with this many parameters and no structured output, the description is insufficient for correct invocation.

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

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

The input schema provides 100% coverage, describing each of the 9 parameters in its own 'description' field. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, so it does not go beyond what the schema already conveys. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb (get HTTP status and content type) and resource (public URL), and adds the key constraint that the body is discarded. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch-status' or 'browser-url-ok', which likely perform similar network checks.

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 the many siblings that deal with URLs, status codes, or content types. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names 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 description notes that the title is discarded after the call, but this is the only behavioral disclosure. No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden; it fails to explain the tool's side effects, the purpose of the nine unrelated parameters, or any other behavioral traits. The statement about discarding a title is confusing because no title parameter exists.

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

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

The description is a single sentence and thus concise, but it lacks essential information. The brevity is not well-structured because it omits critical context about the parameters and behavior, making it under-specified rather than appropriately 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 and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with any of the parameters, nor does it reconcile the stated purpose (Wikipedia title check) with the unrelated schema fields. 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?

The description does not mention any of the nine parameters, and the schema descriptions are generic and mismatched to the stated purpose (e.g., 'ref' as a Git ref name, 'city' as a weather hint). Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no value in connecting parameters to the tool's function, leaving the agent confused about how to invoke it.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' It is clear on its face but does not distinguish from siblings like browser-url-ok or file-path-ok, and the parameter schema is entirely unrelated to the stated purpose, creating ambiguity about what the tool actually does.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a single sentence with no mention of context, exclusions, or alternative tools among the many sibling validation tools.

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