MIME wav

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 'Task text discarded' (which is confusing given no task parameter) and 'Returns connection methods.' It does not disclose network behavior, safety, rate limits, or how parameters are used. The parameter descriptions mention discarding after checks, but the tool description itself does not convey this.

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 that front-loads the purpose and output. It is concise and free of filler, earning a high score for structure, though it lacks details that would make it more complete.

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

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

This tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description does not explain how the parameters relate to the task types, what 'connection methods' means, or how the gateway is selected. It also fails to clarify the confusing 'Task text discarded' statement. For such a complex tool, the description is significantly under-specified.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the 9 parameters is already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics; it only mentions task types without mapping them to specific parameters. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't exceed 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 clear purpose: finding a public pay-per-call tool gateway for tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice, and mentions the output (connection methods). It is distinct from sibling tools that perform specific checks (e.g., browser-url-ok, calc-eval). However, the mention of 'Task text discarded' is confusing because there is no task text parameter, and the description doesn't clarify how the task is inferred.

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 examples of tasks (weather, search, scrape, voice) that would trigger this tool, implying a use case. But it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. The guidance is implied but not formalized with exclusions or comparisons.

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 no browser is launched, which is a negative behavioral trait. It does not explain whether the tool makes network requests, what it returns, or how it handles the many unrelated parameters (e.g., city, json, zone). The behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 at two sentences, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the purpose but lacks structure for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. It is not verbose, but the brevity works against 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?

Given the tool has nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain what 'can be opened' means (validity, reachability, format), what the return value is, or how the parameters relate to the core action. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on this description.

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 covers all parameters with descriptive texts, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and it does not address why parameters like 'ref' or 'city' are relevant to a URL check. The schema descriptions themselves are informative, but the description contributes nothing extra.

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 (check) on a resource (URL) with a clear outcome ('can be opened'). It also clarifies that no browser is launched, which adds specificity. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or playwright-url-ok, which may also check URL accessibility.

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 conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no way to know if this is the right tool for a given task compared to similar siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one meaningful note: 'Page content is not stored,' which clarifies a key non-behavior. However, it omits many other relevant behaviors, such as the fact that most of the 9 parameters are discarded and only the URL is actually used, and it doesn't describe error handling or response structure.

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 zero waste. It states the primary action and the key exclusion (content not stored) efficiently.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It doesn't explain the role of the other 8 parameters, why they are present, or what the output format looks like beyond listing three fields. An agent would likely be confused about the relevance of 'city', 'feed', 'json', etc., to the stated purpose.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-specific insight beyond the schema, though the parameter descriptions themselves include useful notes like 'discarded after the shape check.' Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Return') and resource (host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL), making the core function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch, which also handle URLs, so it misses the top score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or normalize-url. There is no mention of conditions that would favor this tool, nor any exclusion 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 mentions that identifiers are not retained, but does not explain what the tool does, whether it performs network calls, what side effects exist, or what the response contains. This is critically insufficient for a tool with nine parameters.

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 with no wasted words, so it is concise. However, it is too brief to provide meaningful structure or front-loaded key information beyond a vague purpose. It earns a middle score for brevity but lacks substantive content.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's core function, how parameters are used, expected return values, or when to invoke it. Agents cannot confidently use this tool based on the provided information.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters or their relationships. The baseline of 3 applies because 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 vague verb and resource: 'Show how this request is classified.' It does not specify what classification means, what the output is, or how it differs from sibling tools like domain-shape or fetch-status. It is not a tautology but fails to convey a clear, specific function.

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 provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no basis for choosing it among 28 siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool does NOT perform WHOIS or ownership lookups, which is useful, but it does not explain what happens with the diverse parameters (e.g., whether they are discarded, validated, or transformed) beyond what the schema already states. It also does not mention side effects, data usage, or return behavior. The disclosure is minimal and incomplete for a tool with 9 optional 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, concise sentence that avoids fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and constraint. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing critical context, so while it is efficiently written, it is under-specified. It earns a 4 for conciseness but not for 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 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's overall behavior, how the parameters are used, what output is produced, or when to invoke it. An agent cannot determine correct usage, input expectations, or result interpretation from this description alone. It is completely insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not elaborate on how each parameter is used or what constitutes a valid shape. Since the schema covers parameter documentation, the description need not repeat it, but it also does not add value by clarifying relationships or constraints.

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 'Split a hostname into labels' which is clear for a hostname-focused tool, but the tool accepts 9 parameters spanning URLs, cities, feeds, JSON, paths, zones, and queries. It does not explain how these relate to splitting a hostname, making the overall purpose ambiguous and disconnected from the parameter set. The name 'domain-shape' also suggests a broader shape-checking role, but the description narrows it to hostname splitting without acknowledging the full 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 its siblings like file-path-ok, jira-key-shape, or github-repo-shape. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool is preferred. An agent would have no idea why to choose this over the many other shape-checking tools in the sibling list.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states it does a HEAD request and returns status, but it does not disclose that most parameters are discarded or that 'path' has no disk access, even though the schema hints at this. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or response format. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with 9 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, front-loaded sentence that captures the core action and result. It is concise and free of extraneous detail, which is ideal for quick comprehension.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the purpose of the unrelated parameters, whether they are alternatives or constraints, or what the return value looks like. An agent cannot reliably determine how to use the tool for inputs other than 'url' without further inference.

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 is already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat schema details.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb (HEAD) and resource (public URL), and the outcome (status only). However, it does not explain why the input schema accepts 9 disparate parameters (city, zone, query, etc.), so the scope is not fully clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like browser-url-ok or playwright-url-ok, but the phrase 'status only' hints at a lighter operation.

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 browser-url-ok or web-fetch. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for selection. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and 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?

The description explicitly states 'No disk access,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error), what 'safe' means, or any side effects. With no annotations provided, this is 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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the purpose and the key constraint. 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 tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description is minimal. It does not explain why so many unrelated parameters exist (ref, url, city, feed, etc.), nor does it describe the return value or success criteria. An agent would be uncertain about how to invoke it correctly beyond the core path check.

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 has descriptions for all 9 parameters, covering 100% of them. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters; it only mentions the path concept without detailing the others. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('a path'), and adds the important qualifier 'looks safe' and 'No disk access.' This distinguishes it from URL or domain checkers, though it does not explicitly name 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-checking tools (e.g., browser-url-ok, domain-shape, wiki-title-ok). The description offers no context about appropriate scenarios or 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?

With no annotations, the description alone is responsible for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the dependence on an external service ('via Open-Meteo') but does not state whether it is a read-only lookup, what network errors can occur, or whether inputs are discarded after use.

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 compact sentence without unnecessary words. It leads with the required output and method, making it structurally efficient; however, the brevity comes at the cost of omitted practical details.

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?

A tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema or annotations demands far more context than a one-line summary. It does not explain how to select the relevant input or interpret the result, making the agent rely on other sources 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?

The schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'for a place' hints at a location input but does not identify which of the nine parameters provides the place, so the description adds only negligible semantic value 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 states the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, which clearly identifies the resource and data source. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but none of the siblings seem to offer geocoding, so the purpose is reasonably distinct.

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, which parameter to supply, or how it compares to alternatives. The description only implies a functional role without any instructional direction, making it usable only if the agent already knows the tool.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the core parsing action but does not disclose that most of the 9 schema parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) are irrelevant and ignored, nor does it mention behavior on invalid URLs or return format. 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 a single sentence with no extraneous words, front-loading the action. It is concise and well-structured, though perhaps too terse to convey important context.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too incomplete. It does not specify which parameters are used, what the tool returns, or how it handles invalid URLs. An agent would be unable to confidently invoke it correctly based on this 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%, but the descriptions are generic and some conflict with the tool's purpose—e.g., the 'url' parameter is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than a GitHub URL. The tool description does not clarify which parameters are actually used, and the mismatch between schema and purpose reduces clarity.

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: 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like domain-shape or figma-url-shape, as it names the GitHub context. The purpose is unambiguous, though the output format is not stated.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not say 'use this when you have a GitHub URL' nor does it mention any exclusions. Given the large sibling set with similar shape tools, some usage direction would be expected.

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 the action and a note about discarded titles, but does not explain side effects, return format, network usage, rate limits, or why the tool accepts nine unrelated parameters. This leaves significant behavioral 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 highly concise, with two short sentences and the core purpose front-loaded. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, omitting crucial information. It earns a 4 for being tight and clear on the primary action, but it is not fully appropriate in size given the tool's complexity.

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

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

This is a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a two-line purpose. It does not explain what the parameters are for, what the tool returns, any limitations, or how it integrates with the sibling tools. For an agent to use it correctly, substantial inference is required, making it incomplete.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaning beyond the individual parameter descriptions. It fails to explain how parameters like 'city', 'zone', or 'ref' relate to counting Hacker News stories, creating a semantic gap. The description should clarify that only certain parameters are relevant or that they are all ignored except for validation purposes.

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: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' This is specific and distinguishes the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them. The additional 'Titles discarded' clarifies a scope detail, but overall the purpose is clear without needing to open the schema.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or explicit exclusions. The description provides zero context about selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and purpose.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says nothing about side effects, return format, or whether the tool performs any action. It does not even confirm the tool is read-only, despite the schema noting several parameters are 'discarded', which hints at a check-only nature but is not disclosed.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one phrase), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential details such as what the tool returns, how it behaves, and when to use it. The single sentence does not earn its place because it conveys almost no actionable information.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, what inputs are relevant, what the output looks like, or how it differs from siblings. The description fails to cover the basic context needed for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% (all 9 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. However, the description does not relate the parameters to the tool's purpose of 'IANA timezone names'. The parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) appear largely unrelated to timezone names, and the description offers no clarification on how they are used or discarded. The mismatch between the described purpose and the actual parameters undermines the value the schema descriptions provide.

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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase, not a clear action. It implies the tool provides or references timezone names, but does not specify whether it lists, validates, or returns them. It is not tautological but is vague and does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time' beyond an implied 'common names' 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 alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone. With many siblings such as 'timezone' and 'utc-time', the absence of routing guidance is a significant gap.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Key discarded', which hints at a side effect, but gives no details about return values, error behavior, or side effects beyond discarding. It does not clarify what 'shape' means or what a valid key looks like. The schema mentions 'no disk access' for path, but that is not reinforced in the description.

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), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but it omits essential operational details. The brevity does not earn its keep because it leaves critical information missing.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. The agent has no idea which parameter to supply, what the tool returns, or how to interpret the result. This is inadequate for a multi-parameter tool, especially with no structured metadata 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?

While schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no value in linking parameters to the tool's purpose. The 'ref' parameter is described as a 'Git ref name', not a Jira key, so the mapping is unclear. The description does not clarify which parameter is the key to check, leaving the agent to guess. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of Jira-specific context.

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 a Jira issue key shape'), but it fails to identify which of the 9 input parameters holds the key. The parameters are unrelated to Jira keys (ref, url, city, feed, etc.), making the purpose ambiguous. It does not distinguish from sibling shape-checking tools 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when to prefer it over other shape validators, nor any exclusions or conditions. The description is a single sentence with no context for 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?

The only disclosed behavior is that the body is discarded, which is a useful detail. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does not explain what is returned (presumably an HTTP status code), whether any parameters other than 'url' are used, or any side effects. The mismatch between the description and the broad schema further obscures actual behavior.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no annotations. It does not front-load the most important usage context; instead it leaves the agent guessing about the tool's actual scope. The brevity is not earned because it sacrifices clarity.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, zero required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It only mentions the 'url' parameter implicitly, ignoring the other eight. An agent cannot determine which parameters are relevant, what the tool does with them, or what the response looks like. This is severely inadequate for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the parameter descriptions are confusing and conflict with the stated purpose. For example, 'city' is described as 'City name for a public weather hint' and 'json' as 'JSON text to validate' – these have no relation to library docs or HTTP status. The tool description adds no clarifying meaning, and the schema descriptions themselves introduce ambiguity.

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 ('HTTP status for a public library docs URL'), but it is ambiguous because the input schema accepts nine unrelated parameters (city, json, zone, query, etc.) that have no connection to library docs. It also fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which similarly check HTTP status. The intended purpose is unclear given the schema mismatch.

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 fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that values are discarded, but omits the return format, error behavior, which parameter holds the JSON, and whether it is read-only. The schema's 'json' parameter description ('JSON text to validate') conflicts with the tool's stated purpose of counting keys, adding confusion.

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

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

The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the primary action and a key behavioral note. It is efficient, though it could benefit from a structured mention of the input parameter.

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 and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, which parameter to pass, or any constraints. An agent cannot confidently call this tool based on the provided information.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented. However, the tool description adds no value beyond the schema; it does not clarify which parameter is the JSON input. The 'json' parameter's description about validation rather than counting leaves the mapping unclear.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action (count keys) and resource (a JSON object), and notes values are discarded. However, it does not specify which parameter carries the JSON input, and the 'json' parameter in the schema is described as 'validate' rather than 'count', creating ambiguity. It also does not distinguish itself 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and minimal 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nothing about side effects, rate limits, required permissions, or what happens to the inputs. The phrase 'discarded after the shape check' in the schema hints at some validation, but the tool description itself is silent on 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 one short sentence, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness. It contains no actionable information and wastes no words only because it says almost nothing. It does not earn its place; it fails to provide any value.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a description that is essentially a placeholder, the tool is completely underspecified. An agent cannot determine correct invocation, expected inputs, or result format. Even a minimal explanation of the tool's function is absent.

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. However, the tool description does not link these parameters to the tool's purpose. The parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) seem to span unrelated domains, and without a unifying description the agent cannot infer how they should be populated or what the tool will do with them. The schema alone is insufficient because the tool's intent is opaque.

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

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

The description 'Public MIME token for wav.' is a noun phrase with no verb or action. It does not state what the tool does, what input it expects, or what output it produces. It fails to distinguish from siblings like 'compatibility' or 'domain-shape' and provides no clue how the 9 unrelated parameters are used.

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 or when to prefer an alternative. The description does not mention any context, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent with zero direction on selecting this tool over the many 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 must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'No browser is launched,' which is a useful non-obvious detail, but it does not disclose what the tool does with the various inputs, whether any side effects occur, or what it returns. This is inadequate for a tool with 9 optional parameters.

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 (two sentences), which is concise, but given the complexity of 9 parameters, it is under-specified. The core purpose is front-loaded, yet the brevity leaves out essential context about how the parameters are used, making it 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how each parameter contributes to the check, what 'can be opened' means for different input types, or what the tool returns. The complexity demands far more context 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?

Schema coverage is 100% because every parameter has a description (e.g., 'discarded after the check'), so the schema already documents parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which gives a baseline of 3. It neither reinforces nor enriches the parameter information.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('check whether a URL can be opened') but is ambiguous because the input schema contains 9 unrelated parameters (city, json, path, zone, etc.). It fails to clarify how these relate to the stated purpose, making the tool's actual scope unclear despite not being a tautology.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok or fetch-status. The description offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing it over 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?

The description discloses that the query is discarded, but it does not mention that other parameters are also discarded (as indicated in the schema descriptions) or describe the return value. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose behavior for the other eight parameters or the output format.

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

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

The description is extremely brief with only two sentences, but this brevity is not appropriate because it omits essential information about the tool's scope and behavior. It is not front-loaded with the most critical context beyond a single action.

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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the other parameters, what the tool returns, or any side effects. An agent cannot reliably use this tool without additional context.

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

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

The schema provides descriptions for all nine parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning the query parameter and ignoring the others. It does not clarify how the parameters relate to the action, which could mislead an agent into thinking only query is used.

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

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

The description states the action 'Count characters in a search query' with a clear verb and resource. However, the input schema includes nine other parameters that are not mentioned, creating ambiguity about whether the tool counts characters in only the query field or in any provided string. This mismatch undermines clarity and does not differentiate from siblings like memory-key-count or hn-front-count.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose between this and similar counting 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 provided, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states a static catalog. It doesn't mention whether the tool makes network calls, validates inputs, returns status codes, or discards parameters (as hinted in the schema). 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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It omits essential details about usage, parameters, and output, so brevity is not a virtue here.

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 grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, how parameters are used, or any constraints, making it impossible for an agent to call the tool correctly without guessing.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema, but the tool description adds no context to link them to the catalog. The parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') suggest shape checks, which are unrelated to status codes. The description fails to explain how any parameter influences the tool's purpose, so it doesn't compensate for the semantic gap.

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

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

The description says 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which is vague and doesn't state what the tool actually does with its inputs. It fails to connect the 9 parameters (e.g., url, city, json) to any action or output, making it unclear whether it returns a status code, validates a URL, or something else. There is no differentiation 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes tools like fetch-status and browser-url-ok that likely handle HTTP status checks, but the description offers no conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'Prompt discarded' and each parameter description notes it is 'discarded' after some check. This is cryptic and does not explain side effects, side effects, requirements, or what the returned template actually is. The agent cannot predict behavior beyond the literal statement.

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, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any information that would help an agent, and the single sentence does not earn its place because it raises more questions than it answers.

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, this description is grossly incomplete. The agent has no idea what the 'three-step thinking template' contains, what the output format is, or why the parameters are present. It cannot make an informed decision to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 could be expected, but the parameter descriptions are nearly useless: they all say the value is 'discarded' after a check. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how parameters influence the output. Since the parameters are all optional and discarded, the semantics are unclear—why would an agent provide them at all?

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 'Return' and resource 'three-step thinking template', so it is not a tautology. However, it does not explain what the template is, what steps it contains, or how the parameters relate to it. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is confusing and does not clarify the tool's actual function. This fails to distinguish it from the many sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 28 siblings. No alternatives are mentioned, no conditions are stated, and no exclusions are given. The only hint, 'Prompt discarded', suggests the tool ignores input but does not tell the agent why or when it would be useful.

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 states the output ('current time') without revealing format, error handling, or validation behavior for invalid zones. This is minimal and leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple 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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify which of the 9 optional parameters to use, lacks an output schema, and does not clarify the purpose of unrelated parameters. The agent may not know how 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as specifying which parameter (zone) to use or clarifying the presence of unrelated parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Current time in a named IANA timezone.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like utc-time (UTC time) and iana-zones (zone list).

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 exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the output. It does not explain whether the tool performs network calls, has side effects, or why it accepts parameters like 'ref', 'url', 'city', etc. The description is silent on these behaviors, leaving agents unaware of potential implications.

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

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

The description is extremely brief, almost to the point of under-specification. It consists of a single phrase and does not front-load any critical information beyond the basic output. While it has no wasted words, it omits essential context about parameters and usage, so it is not 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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description. It accepts nine optional parameters that are not explained in the description, and their behavior is unclear. An agent cannot determine what the tool actually does beyond returning a timestamp, making the definition incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a descriptive comment in the schema. Per the rubric, this yields a baseline of 3. The description itself adds no additional context about the parameters, but the schema already documents their purpose, so the description does not need to compensate. The parameters' oddity (e.g., a 'city' for a weather hint) is unexplained, but that gap is in the schema, not the description's responsibility.

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

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

The description 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns the current UTC time. It is specific and not a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from the 'timezone' sibling, which might also provide time-related functionality, and it omits any mention of the nine parameters that are part of the input schema.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'timezone' or other utilities. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. An agent has to infer usage entirely from the 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?

The description only says the body is discarded, which is about data retention, not behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or return values. There are no annotations to supplement. The tool's behavior of returning a boolean or error is not disclosed. It also doesn't mention that it only uses the 'json' parameter.

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 it lacks structure and important details. It's not front-loaded with usage context; it just states the 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, which parameter to use, or any limitations. An agent would be uncertain how to call it correctly.

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

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

The schema descriptions are detailed, but the tool description adds no clarification about which parameters are relevant. With 9 optional parameters, only 'json' seems relevant, but the description doesn't say that. This could lead an agent to populate multiple fields unnecessarily.

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 checks JSON validity, distinguishing it from other shape-check tools. However, the parameter schema is cluttered with unrelated fields, which could confuse an agent about what the tool actually operates on. The verb 'check' and resource 'body' are specific, so it's clear enough.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other validation tools. It doesn't mention alternatives or any preconditions. An agent would have no idea when to choose this over, say, file-path-ok or domain-shape.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the output (temperature) and the data source (Open-Meteo). It does not mention that most input parameters are 'discarded' after checks, the specific return format, rate limits, or any side effects. The schema hints at discard semantics but the description fails to explain them.

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 states the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. While it could be more informative, the brevity is not excessive—it is just under-specified. It earns a 4 for clean structure without waste.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain why there are parameters like 'ref', 'url', 'feed', 'host', etc., nor how they relate to weather. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly without understanding the parameter roles or expected outputs. The description is far from adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides—it only repeats 'city' implicitly. Since the schema covers parameter semantics fully, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance 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 clearly states the tool's primary function: 'Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from generic tools. However, it does not reconcile the presence of 9 unrelated parameters in the schema, which could confuse an agent 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, conditions, or alternative tools (e.g., geo-hint, timezone) that might be relevant. An agent has no context to decide between weather-hint and other location or hint 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only notes 'Title discarded after the call,' but gives no insight into return values, side effects, required permissions, or error behavior. The agent cannot predict what happens if the title exists or not, or what the output will be.

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

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

The description is one short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and helpful elaboration. It is under-specified rather than appropriately sized, since it omits crucial information.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the parameters, the expected input, the return format, or the context for use. An agent would be unable to reliably invoke this 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no connection between the parameters and the purpose. None of the parameter names (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) obviously map to a 'title,' and the description does not clarify which parameter should carry the Wikipedia title. This creates confusion about how to invoke the 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 and resource: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' This is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or domain-shape, which might also check existence or validity of similar entities.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or mention of related tools. The description lacks any context that would help an agent decide when to select it.

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