Nano ID length, value discarded

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that no browser is launched, but it does not explain whether a network request is made, what side effects occur, or what 'opened' means operationally. This is insufficient for a tool with many 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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for the complexity of the tool. Conciseness is good, but it sacrifices necessary information about behavior and parameter usage.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too brief. It does not clarify the tool's actual operation (e.g., whether it performs a HEAD request), how the extra parameters are used, or what the result indicates. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying 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 cover all 9 parameters (100% coverage) and already explain each field's purpose, including which are discarded. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. However, the description does not explain why so many unrelated parameters exist for a URL check, which is a gap in 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 action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and explicitly notes no browser is launched, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like playwright-url-ok. However, it does not clarify whether this is a syntactic or network-level check, and the term 'can be opened' is ambiguous without further context.

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 or normalize-url. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, 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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy trait, but says nothing about side effects, network access, read-only behavior, or what happens to each input. The schema parameter descriptions add some notes (e.g., 'discarded'), but the top-level description remains largely 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 short sentence, which is efficient in length. However, it is under-specified to the point of vagueness; conciseness without substance does not earn a higher score.

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, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'classified' means, what the return value is, or how to interpret the result. The agent would be unable to use this tool correctly based solely on the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, and with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description states 'Show how this request is classified' which names a verb and a resource, but 'classified' is undefined—it doesn't specify what kind of classification (e.g., request type, compatibility check) or what the output looks like. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like domain-shape or file-path-ok, which also seem to classify inputs.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which of the 9 heterogeneous parameters (URL, city, JSON, path, etc.) is relevant for a given request.

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 fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'split a hostname into labels' and what it doesn't do. It does not mention that the tool likely validates multiple input shapes (as implied by schema fields with 'discarded after the check'), nor does it describe return values, error conditions, or side effects. The description is misleadingly narrow.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail; it is front-loaded with the core action but omits critical context. It earns a 4 for conciseness but is not ideal because under-specification is not the same as effective 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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of most parameters, does not describe the return format, does not specify when to use it, and fails to clarify the tool's actual behavior. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based solely on the 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema states. It only references the 'host' concept, but does not explain the relevance of the other 8 parameters. The description's focus on hostname splitting contradicts the schema's broader validation purpose, so it fails to add value and actually confuses parameter semantics.

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') and a clear limitation ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which gives some purpose clarity. However, it does not align with the input schema, which contains 9 parameters including ref, city, json, etc., implying a broader shape-checking purpose. The description also does not distinguish it from the many sibling tools explicitly, and the name 'domain-shape' is vague.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. There is no mention of when it should be preferred over tools like 'normalize-url' or 'github-repo-shape', nor any exclusions. The only hint is the negative statement about WHOIS/ownership, which is a limitation, not a usage directive.

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 the HEAD method and that it returns status only, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention behavior like redirect handling, timeout behavior, error responses, or that it only works on public URLs (which is stated but not elaborated). It does not contradict any annotation, but it is minimal.

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 states the core action and output. It is appropriately concise and avoids fluff. However, given the tool's complexity (9 parameters), it might be too terse, but it is not bloated and gets to the point immediately.

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 insufficient. It does not explain what 'status' means (e.g., HTTP status code), how the other parameters affect the operation, or what happens when multiple parameters are provided. The description covers only the URL case, leaving the tool's full behavior unexplained. An agent cannot confidently invoke it for non-URL parameters 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 schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3, but the description does not explain how the non-URL parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) relate to the HEAD request. It says 'HEAD a public URL' which only aligns with the 'url' parameter. The schema descriptions indicate these are for shape checks and are discarded, but the tool description does not clarify that the tool actually validates various inputs and returns a status. This mismatch 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 clearly states a specific verb (HEAD), a resource (public URL), and the result (status only). It differentiates from siblings like web-fetch (which fetches content) and browser-url-ok (which likely checks availability). The phrase 'status only' also clarifies the output scope, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The description implies that if you need only a status, this is suitable, but it does not name sibling tools like web-fetch or browser-url-ok or state when not to use it. For a tool with many similar siblings, this is a significant omission.

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 disclose side effects, network access, auth requirements, or other behavioral traits. It only says 'Parse' and 'Path discarded', which is insufficient to understand the tool's runtime behavior.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and the key behavior, making it easy to scan and understand.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the return value, which parameters are required for meaningful use, or how the discarded path affects the result.

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

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

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions are generic and mostly unrelated to Figma URL parsing (e.g., city, feed, zone, query). The tool description does not clarify which parameters are actually relevant to the Figma URL or how they relate to 'Path discarded'.

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 ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), and it adds a meaningful constraint ('Path discarded'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or competing 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'via Open-Meteo,' which implies a network call but does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, whether it is read-only, or what happens when inputs are invalid. The description is silent on all behavioral traits.

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 rather than appropriately concise. It omits essential information about inputs and behavior, so it does not earn its place as a useful tool description.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain how the tool uses the parameters, what the return value looks like, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided 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 schema descriptions cover all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. Worse, it creates confusion: the description implies the tool only deals with geographic locations, yet the schema includes parameters like 'url', 'feed', and 'json' that are unrelated to geolocation. It fails to clarify which parameters are actually used for the stated purpose.

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

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

The description states a specific output (latitude and longitude) and a service (Open-Meteo), but it is vague about the input: the schema lists nine parameters, many of which (url, feed, json, path, zone, query) seem unrelated to geolocation. It does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they map to the tool's purpose, and it does not differentiate it from the sibling 'weather-hint' which likely also uses a city name.

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 not to use it, no exclusions, no context about typical use cases. An agent is left to guess whether this is the right tool for a given task.

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

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

The phrase 'Key discarded' hints at no side effects, but the description does not disclose what the tool returns on success or failure, whether it throws errors, or how it handles invalid input. With no annotations, this lack of behavioral detail leaves the agent guessing.

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 but poorly structured; it fails to define the expected input format or the term 'shape.' While brevity is good, the lack of clarity makes it ineffective, and the mismatch with the schema compounds the confusion.

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 ambiguous schema and lack of output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to call this tool, what input to provide, or what to expect in return, making it nearly unusable without external knowledge.

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

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

The schema lists nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with descriptions that are unrelated to Jira issue keys (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint'). None of these parameters seem intended for a Jira key, so the schema is actively misleading and provides no meaningful guidance on which parameter to use.

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 and object ('Check a Jira issue key shape') but leaves the meaning of 'shape' undefined and does not clarify how the key should be provided. It is too vague for an agent to know what constitutes a valid input or output.

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 compared to sibling shape-checking tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. The description does not mention any alternatives or conditions that would make this tool the appropriate choice.

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 full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Values discarded' which hints at behavior, but it does not state the return value (presumably a count), error handling for invalid JSON, or the fact that only the 'json' parameter is used. The schema descriptions for several parameters say 'discarded after the shape check,' which conflicts with the counting purpose, adding confusion rather than transparency.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence, which is good for front-loading. But it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. It omits essential usage context, so while concise, it is not appropriately sized for the 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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is far too brief. It does not identify which parameter holds the JSON object, what the tool returns, or how it handles invalid input. The inconsistency with schema descriptions further undermines completeness.

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. However, the description adds no parameter-specific value and fails to clarify that the 'json' parameter is the intended input. Moreover, the schema description for 'json' says 'JSON text to validate,' which contradicts the description's counting purpose. This mismatch actively misleads an agent trying to select parameters.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Count keys in a JSON object.' This is clear about the core action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json or domain-shape, and it is ambiguous which of the nine parameters actually holds the JSON object.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer a sibling like validate-json or domain-shape. The agent must infer usage from the tool 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 mentions 'value discarded' without explaining side effects, return values, or any behavioral traits. It does not disclose what happens to inputs or what output is produced.

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 is not structured as a clear sentence. It lacks a verb and reads as a truncated phrase, which is under-specification rather than concise 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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's function, expected inputs, or output, making it impossible for an agent to use 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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the tool description adds no meaning. The parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') are unrelated to the tool's stated purpose of 'Nano ID length', leaving the agent confused about how to use these parameters.

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

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

The description 'Nano ID length, value discarded' is a fragment that essentially restates the tool name without stating a clear action or resource. It does not say what the tool does with its 9 parameters, nor how it distinguishes itself from siblings like search-query-len or memory-key-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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is provided about typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Current UTC timestamp' and gives no hint about side effects, parameter handling, or that many parameters are discarded (as the schema notes). The tool may accept a 'ref', 'url', 'city', etc., but the description never explains what happens with them, leaving the agent with a misleadingly simple view of the tool's 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 extremely short (three words) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information about the tool's actual inputs and behavior, making it inappropriate for the tool's complexity. A concise but complete description would still be short yet include usage 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 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of the parameter interplay, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly because it does not know what inputs are relevant or what the tool actually does with them. The description fails to provide any practical guidance beyond the return value.

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 schema provides individual descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'), which gives meaning. However, the tool description adds no context on how these parameters relate to returning a timestamp, and the parameters appear unrelated to the stated purpose, so the description does not enhance their semantics.

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 output is the current UTC timestamp, but it does not mention the nine input parameters or how they relate to the tool's purpose. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', so an agent cannot tell when to choose this over those without additional context.

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 only gives a one-line output statement and omits any conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. An agent has no basis to decide between this and related time tools.

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