Nano ID shape check

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a meaningful privacy behavior: 'Page content is not stored.' However, it does not disclose whether a network request is made, how redirects or errors are handled, or what exactly the return object contains beyond the three named fields.

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?

Two short sentences, both informative: the first states the primary behavior and the second adds a privacy clarification. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 four parameters, zero annotations, no output schema, and a large set of related sibling tools, the description is too narrow. It covers only the URL case and omits the purpose and use of the `json` and `zone` parameters, leaving the tool materially incomplete from an agent's perspective.

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 even without extra parameter detail in the tool description. The description adds little beyond the schema for `url` and does not explain how `host`, `json`, and `zone` relate to the declared URL-citation behavior, leaving their role ambiguous.

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 action ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL') and adds a useful privacy qualifier. It is reasonably distinct from sibling tools like normalize-url and status-catalog, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The main ambiguity is that the schema also includes `host`, `json`, and `zone` parameters, which the description does not address.

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 about when to prefer this tool over the many overlapping siblings such as normalize-url, status-catalog, inspect-robots, or validate-json. The description implies URL-checking usage but does not state what it is not for, when it should be avoided, or which alternatives exist.

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 at all, the description carries the transparency burden. The statement 'No identifiers are retained' adds a useful privacy/retention behavior that goes beyond the schema, but it does not disclose whether the tool performs network requests, what side effects may occur, or how input is otherwise processed.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core claim is front-loaded. However, the terseness leaves important semantic gaps, which slightly reduces the 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 four optional, heterogeneous parameters and no output schema or annotations, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot infer what inputs to provide, what the classification result looks like, or why it would choose this tool over its siblings.

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 the schema; it refers to 'request' generically and does not clarify how url, host, json, and zone relate to classification.

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 names a verb ('Show') and a subject ('how this request is classified'), but never defines what 'request' means or what classification labels look like. It is not a tautology, but it remains vague about the tool's core function and does not distinguish it from siblings like validate-json, normalize-url, or timezone.

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

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

No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives is given. The schema accepts url, host, json, and zone, which overlap conceptually with siblings (normalize-url, validate-json, timezone), yet the description gives no selection criteria 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 is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It states the split operation and a negative scope, but says nothing about input handling, return shape, whether URL normalization occurs, or what happens with the optional json/zone parameters. For a tool with no annotations, 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core operation appears immediately and the clarifying exclusion is compact. It earns its place and is appropriately concise.

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

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

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain behavior and return values. It only says labels are produced and WHOIS data is absent, leaving an agent unsure which of four optional parameters to pass and what the tool returns. The schema's unrelated parameters (url, json, zone) are not reconciled with 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 each parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond aligning 'hostname' with the 'host' parameter; it doesn't clarify how url, json, or zone relate to the stated purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Split') and resource ('hostname') and states a clear exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), making the core purpose identifiable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nanoid-shape or normalize-url, but the function is 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?

The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies a limitation and suggests the tool is for label splitting only, but it never states when to prefer it over siblings or names an alternative. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only hints that this provides names for clock calls and does not mention whether it returns a list, accepts input, performs a lookup, or has any side effects.

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

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

The description is short and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. It spends its single sentence restating the tool name and leaves out essential operational 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how parameters relate to behavior. It does neither, and the presence of four unrelated-looking parameters makes the lack of context more damaging.

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 four parameters (`url`, `host`, `json`, `zone`) already have descriptive text. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score 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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and includes no verb or explicit action. It adds only a vague hint that the tool relates to clock calls but does not clarify whether it lists, filters, resolves, or validates timezone names.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to call this tool instead of sibling tools like `timezone`, `utc-time`, or `normalize-url`, nor does it explain what scenario requires `iana-zones`.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by noting the resource is public and that only group counts are returned, but it does not explain error behavior, what group counts mean, or how the fetch is performed. Some transparency is present, but significant gaps remain.

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 a clear active verb, explicit resource, and upfront output limitation. There is no filler or repetition.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to specify the robots.txt URL or host, what 'group counts' contain, or what the response looks like, leaving too much for the agent to guess.

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 parameter descriptions are misaligned with the tool's purpose: url is described for normalizing/citing, json for validation, zone for timezone, and none mention robots.txt. The description also does not clarify whether url or host is the intended target, making parameter selection ambiguous.

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

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

The description clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a public robots.txt' and specifies the output as 'group counts only.' It is unambiguous about the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools; no sibling obviously covers robots.txt.

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 prerequisites, and no indication of which parameter supplies the robots.txt location. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a 'check' happens and says nothing about side effects, return values, error behavior, or what happens to inputs; the 'discarded after the check' note appears in the schema, not 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 concise only in the sense of being four words long, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is a noun phrase with no verb, no context, and no structure that helps the agent use the tool.

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

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

For a four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, a four-word description is dramatically insufficient. It does not specify what input to provide, what output to expect, or how this shape check differs from sibling tools, making reliable invocation impossible.

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 every parameter has a schema description, the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and never connects the 'Nano ID' concept to url, host, json, or zone. This leaves a major gap: the agent cannot tell which parameter is the Nano ID to be checked, so the high schema coverage does not compensate.

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 shape check' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'nanoid-shape' as a bare noun phrase. It does not say what a shape check is, what a valid Nano ID looks like, or which of the four unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) contains the Nano ID, so the agent gets little beyond the 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 about when to use this tool instead of siblings like domain-shape or validate-json, and no instructions about which parameter to supply. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and schema, which is especially problematic because the schema properties do not obviously relate to a Nano ID.

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 transparency burden. It explicitly discloses an important behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped, which goes beyond simply saying 'normalize a URL.' This tells the agent that those components will not appear in the result.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core behavior with no filler. The action and result are front-loaded, and the important 'query and fragment are dropped' detail is placed immediately after.

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 four optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, but the description only covers URL normalization. An agent cannot tell whether host, json, and zone are alternatives, ignored, or valid modes, nor what the response shape will be.

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 already has 100% description coverage for its parameters, so the description does not need to repeat those details. However, it adds no meaning for the host, json, and zone parameters, leaving their relationship to the stated URL purpose unexplained; the description only adds context for the url parameter.

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 result: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and clarifies that query and fragment are dropped. This clearly identifies the tool as a URL normalization/extraction function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from adjacent siblings like citation.

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 prefer normalize-url over other URL-related tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The description implies the tool is for extracting normalized URL parts, but it does not state when not to use it or how to choose among 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?

No annotations are provided and the description discloses no behavior beyond the noun-phrase catalog statement. There is no mention of read-only nature, output format, side effects, or how inputs affect 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 brief and front-loaded, with no wasted words. But it is under-specified to the point of being a title fragment rather than a functional 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a one-line description that lacks an operation, the definition is not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain output, selection of parameters, or how this tool differs from siblings.

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 descriptions cover all four parameters with definitions for URL, host, JSON, and zone, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no context about how these parameters relate to a catalog of HTTP status codes, leaving 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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'status-catalog' with the words 'common HTTP' added. It lacks a verb or explicit operation, so an agent cannot tell whether the tool returns a list, looks up a code, or checks something.

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 statement about when to use this tool or which sibling tools are alternatives. An agent has no guidance on choosing status-catalog over citation, compatibility, 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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only lookup of the current time in a specified zone, but it does not mention invalid-zone behavior, DST handling, or 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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the core behavior 'Current time' and scoped immediately to an IANA timezone. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool, this is minimally adequate: it identifies the relevant input (zone) and the return concept (current time). However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits response format details and fails to address the extraneous parameters or the distinction from utc-time.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; it only rephrases 'IANA timezone name' as 'named IANA timezone.' It also does not clarify why url, host, and json appear in the schema when the description implies only zone is relevant.

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 operation (get current time) and the resource (a named IANA timezone). It is implicitly distinguishable from sibling tools like utc-time and iana-zones, but it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as utc-time or iana-zones. No exclusions, preconditions, or alternative routing are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Current UTC timestamp' and does not disclose that the tool appears to ignore the four input parameters, nor does it mention output format, side-effect-freeness, or other relevant behavior. The presence of unrelated schema fields makes this gap more significant.

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

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

The description is extremely concise and front-loads the core purpose in three words. There is no wasted text, though the brevity leaves important contextual gaps that push it below a perfect 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?

With no output schema, the description should at least mention the return format, and with an input schema full of unrelated parameters it should clarify whether they are accepted or ignored. The description is too terse to give an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly among the listed siblings.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, every parameter description is unrelated to a UTC timestamp tool: url is 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', json is 'JSON text to validate', and zone is 'IANA timezone name'. The description adds no clarification that these parameters are irrelevant or ignored, so the structured schema actively misleads rather than helps.

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 resource and result: it returns the current UTC time. It is distinguishable from siblings like timezone and iana-zones by the explicit UTC scope, though it does not name those alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus related siblings such as timezone or iana-zones. The description implies a simple clock lookup but never states when it is appropriate or when a different tool should be chosen.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the body is discarded, implying a non-persistent validation operation. However, it does not state the return value, invalid-JSON behavior, or whether other schema fields affect the operation.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The key behavioral fact that the body is discarded is included efficiently, and every sentence 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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it omits the result format, error handling, and how the unrelated optional parameters should be treated. An agent cannot fully predict tool behavior or confidently construct a correct call.

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 most parameter descriptions are irrelevant to JSON validation and appear copied from sibling tools (url, host, zone). The description does not map 'body' to the json parameter or clarify that only 'json' should be used, making parameter selection confusing.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('check') and a specific target ('body' valid JSON), and adds that the body is discarded. It is not a tautology and is clearly about validating JSON, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings. The use of 'body' rather than 'json' introduces minor ambiguity.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The only implied context comes from the tool's name and generic action, so an agent must infer usage.

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