Punycode host check

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 usefully adds 'Page content is not stored,' which is a meaningful privacy-relevant trait. However, it does not mention what happens on network failures, redirects, unreachable URLs, or side effects of the json/zone parameters. The behavioral picture is thin.

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 sentences, no filler, and the primary result is front-loaded. The privacy note earns its place as a distinct behavioral trait. This is appropriately concise for what information is provided.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must do substantial work. It explains only the URL-related output and ignores the json, zone, and host parameters entirely, as well as the meaning of 'citation.' For an agent selecting this tool, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 implies url is the main input but does not clarify how host, json, and zone relate to the documented behavior of returning host, scheme, and HTTP status. It neither contradicts nor meaningfully enhances 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: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' However, this does not align with the tool name 'citation' and covers only the url-related behavior, leaving the json and zone parameters unexplained. The purpose is partially clear but incomplete and not differentiated from sibling tools like normalize or validate.

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 normalize or validate. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or contextual conditions for choosing citation. The usage context is entirely absent.

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 does disclose one meaningful behavior: 'No identifiers are retained.' However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or what 'classified' entails beyond showing a 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?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no padding. Every sentence serves a purpose: one states the main action, the other addresses a key privacy concern.

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 and no annotations, so the description must explain what 'classification' produces and how the four optional parameters influence it. It does none of that, leaving an agent unable to predict the output or pick sensible arguments.

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 url, host, json, and zone. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it does not explain how any of the four parameters relate to classification or compatability.

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 gives a verb and an object ('Show how this request is classified'), but the meaning of 'classified' and the relation to the tool name 'compatibility' are left undefined. It is not a tautology, but it is vague and does not distinguish the tool from siblings like normalize-url or 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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There are no conditions, exclusions, or mentions of alternatives, so an agent must guess 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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that WHOIS and ownership data are absent, but it does not describe the return format, side effects, how the multiple parameters are treated, or any processing behaviors beyond splitting a hostname.

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 single sentence is lean and front-loads the core operation. It earns its place, but it is so brief that it leaves significant functional gaps; still, conciseness itself is well handled.

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 with no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the hostname-splitting aspect, leaving an agent unable to determine the purpose of url, json, and zone, or what result to expect.

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 describes each parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description hints that 'host' is the relevant input for splitting, but adds no further semantic detail about how url, json, or zone relate to the described behavior.

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 specific operation, 'split a hostname into labels', and clarifies it provides no WHOIS or ownership data. However, the input schema includes four unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone), and the description does not explain how these fit the stated purpose, making the overall tool scope unclear.

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 phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' partially sets expectations, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or mention of a sibling tool for comparison.

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 behavioral traits, but it does not. It does not say whether the tool returns a static list, filters by the zone parameter, has side effects, or what the output format is. The only inference is that it provides common IANA timezone names.

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 text is very concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, the single sentence is under-specified in that it lacks a verb and focuses only on the resource, not the action or behavior.

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 four optional parameters, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation. It does not explain how url, host, json, or zone should be used, what a typical call looks like, or what the return value is, leaving the agent to guess whether to pass arguments at all.

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 baseline 3 applies even without parameter detail in the description. The description adds no meaning to the parameters, and the schema's url, host, and json descriptions seem unrelated to IANA timezone names, which remains 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 is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls'), not a clear action. It identifies a resource and a context but never states what the tool does with those names, and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like list-zones.

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 'for clock calls' provides an implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of list-zones, timezone, or convert-zone. No when-not-to-use or alternative-handling information is given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. Instead of stating what actions the tool performs, it describes an environment and links to external docs. The actual behavior remains completely hidden, and the reference to 'global reasoning or memory' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 run-on sentence that mixes unrelated concerns: execution environment, documentation links, variant mentions, and a platform URL. It is neither concise nor structured, and the important information (what the tool does) is absent.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. A complete description would explain what the tool does with these parameters and what the result is. The description instead discusses a runtime and external documentation, leaving an agent without the basic context needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information, but since the schema already documents all four parameters, the description does not need to compensate. There is no contradiction or added value.

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 does not state what the tool does. It describes a runtime environment ('Run inside a subprocess once a code snippet is accepted') and references OpenAI documentation and a platform URL, but never specifies the tool's operation or resource. This is misleading and fails to distinguish the tool from any sibling.

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 vs alternatives. The description vaguely mentions 'architecture-constrained runtime' and 'fallback variants' but does not explain which variant to choose or under what conditions. This is effectively no usable usage guidance and could mislead an agent.

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, and it does disclose one key behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped. It does not, however, explain handling of invalid URLs or the role of the json and zone parameters, which could surprise an agent invoking the tool.

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, no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded. Every phrase ('Return origin, host, and path', 'Query and fragment are dropped') 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 description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. It explains what happens to the 'url' input but does not describe how 'host', 'json', or 'zone' are used or expected, and it provides no return type details beyond the three components. An agent cannot confidently determine whether those parameters are optional, ignored, or alternative modes.

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 minor value by clarifying that 'url' is the input and that its query/fragment are stripped, but it introduces ambiguity by using 'host' as an output term when 'host' is also an input parameter. It adds no meaning for 'json' or 'zone' 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 ('Return') and resource ('URL') and details the exact outputs (origin, host, path). It also notes the dropped query/fragment, which further defines scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as validate-json or punycode-ok, so it stops short of a 5.

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 choose normalize-url over its siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the intended context 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 available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a non-mutating 'check', but it does not state whether the result is a boolean, a normalized host, a validation report, or something else, nor what happens when multiple optional parameters are supplied.

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, but this is under-specification rather than effective concision. A seven-word fragment is not an appropriately sized definition for a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema.

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

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

The description is missing the expected input strategy, parameter selection logic, return behavior, and safety profile. The schema descriptions give each field some meaning, but the overall tool contract remains too vague for a reliable 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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is met. However, the tool description adds no connection between url, host, json, or zone and the punycode check, leaving the agent to guess which parameter actually drives the operation.

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 is essentially a noun-phrase restatement of the tool name: 'punycode-ok' becomes 'Punycode host check'. It never explains what the check determines, what it returns, or how it relates to the URL, JSON, and timezone parameters, and it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like domain-shape or normalize-url.

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 siblings such as domain-shape, normalize-url, or validate-json. The phrase only hints at the punycode-host topic and offers no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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. The phrase 'short catalog' only weakly implies a read-only reference with no side effects; it does not state whether the tool makes network requests, whether it inspects the provided url or host, or what the response looks like. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist, but the disclosure 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 sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core subject. It is economical, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance that other dimensions penalize.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It omits what action is performed, how the parameters are consumed, whether any output is returned, and when to invoke the tool. The mismatch between the catalog description and the input schema leaves an agent effectively unable 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 has 100% description coverage, so each parameter (url, host, json, zone) is individually documented. The description, however, adds no meaning about how these parameters relate to the catalog of HTTP status codes, and in fact the parameters seem mismatched with the described purpose. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load, but the disconnect is a meaningful 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 identifies the domain (common HTTP status codes) and suggests a catalog/reference function, so an agent knows the topic. However, there is no explicit verb stating what the tool does (list? look up? validate?), and the input schema parameters (url, host, json, zone) appear unrelated to HTTP status codes, creating confusion. It is distinguishable from siblings like validate-json and normalize-url by topic, but only weakly.

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 what the catalog is useful for, and no exclusions such as 'for JSON validation, use validate-json'. An agent has no contextual basis to choose this tool over its 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Current time' implies a read-only side-effect-free operation, which is helpful, but it does not disclose network requirements, whether the time is fetched live, timezone edge cases (DST, invalid zone), or return format. The misleading schema params (url, host, json) also create unaddressed behavioral 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?

A single sentence of seven words, front-loaded with the core verb and object. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a schema polluted with irrelevant parameters, the description is under-specified. The agent cannot tell what the tool returns (time string? timestamp? ISO 8601?), how zone errors are handled, or whether url/host/json are actual inputs or cataloging leftovers.

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, but three of the four params (url, host, json) appear unrelated to a timezone tool and likely were inherited from sibling tools. The description mentions 'IANA timezone' which maps to the 'zone' param, but it does not explain or disambiguate why the other params exist, actively undermining trust in 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 action ('Current time') and resource ('named IANA timezone') in a concise way, which makes the core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool 'utc', which could plausibly serve a similar 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'utc'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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, yet it only states the output value. It doesn't mention side effects, parameter relevance, return format, or what happens if url, host, json, or zone are supplied.

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 and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits essential information about parameters and behavior, so the brevity harms rather than helps.

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 one-clause description is grossly inadequate for a tool with four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The agent cannot know what to pass, what the response looks like, or how this tool relates to 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 coverage is 100%, giving each parameter a description, but those descriptions are entirely disconnected from a UTC timestamp tool. The prose adds no explanation of whether these parameters are accepted, ignored, or used to customize the result.

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 the output clearly (current UTC timestamp) but lacks a verb and does not reconcile with the four unrelated parameters in the schema. It also doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling timezone tool.

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 like timezone. There are no conditions, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose this 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the body is discarded, which is a useful side-effect note, but it says nothing about return values, error handling on invalid JSON, or any limits. For a validation tool, the result format is a critical missing piece.

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

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and the discard behavior in just a few words.

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 parameters with none required, no output schema, and the description does not explain what validation result is produced or how the unrelated url/host/zone parameters should be used. An agent cannot reliably determine how to call this tool or interpret its output.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds no meaning for url, host, or zone, and those parameters appear unrelated to validating JSON. The tool description only acknowledges the json body, leaving three parameters unexplained and effectively orphaned in the context of this 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 body is valid JSON.' This is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like normalize-url or timezone tools. However, the input schema lists unrelated parameters (url, host, zone) that muddy the tool's identity and are not reflected in the description.

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 exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The note that 'the body is discarded' is a behavioral constraint, not usage guidance.

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