MIME webm

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 discloses one behavior ('Body discarded') but does not explain that most parameters are ignored or what the exact return value is beyond 'HTTP status'. It omits details about error handling, rate limits, or whether the URL is the only meaningful input.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Two sentences contain no fluff. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, which is a structural tradeoff but not a failure in conciseness.

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

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

The tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a narrow claim (HTTP status for a library docs URL) without explaining how the other parameters are used, what the response structure is, or why the tool exists alongside similar siblings. An agent cannot reliably determine the correct invocation from 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%, so each parameter has its own description in the schema. The tool description adds only a narrowing context ('public library docs URL') that might apply to the 'url' parameter, but it does not clarify how the other eight parameters relate to the stated purpose. This adds marginal 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 a specific verb and resource ('HTTP status for a public library docs URL'), which gives a clear primary purpose. However, the input schema includes nine unrelated parameters (city, zone, json, path, etc.) that are not mentioned, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual scope. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which also check HTTP status.

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 mention that it is intended for library docs URLs specifically, nor does it advise using other tools for different URL types. The description lacks any contextual cues for selection among the many sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only notes that the title is discarded after the call. It doesn't state whether the tool makes network requests, whether it's read-only, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 in length, but it omits critical information and is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It front-loads the purpose but fails to provide any operational detail, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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 extremely incomplete. It does not explain how to provide a title, what the tool returns, what constraints apply, or how it behaves. An agent cannot reliably call this tool 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%, but the parameter descriptions are generic ('discarded after the shape check') and do not explain how each parameter relates to checking a Wikipedia title. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema and does not compensate for the lack of clarity. The agent cannot infer which parameter to use for the title.

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 whether a Wikipedia title exists') with a clear resource, but the input schema contains nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, etc.) that have no obvious connection to a Wikipedia title. It's ambiguous which parameter supplies the title, so the purpose is not actionable. It also does not distinguish from sibling shape-checkers like browser-url-ok or fetch-status.

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. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. An agent has no basis to choose this over sibling tools that might also check existence of URLs or resources.

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