HTTP status class 1xx-5xx

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

The note 'No identifiers are retained' hints at privacy, but the actual behavior—what side effects occur, what output is produced, or what inputs are accepted—is entirely undisclosed. No annotations supplement this gap.

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

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

The description is extremely short and has no redundant content. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices meaningful information, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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 heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and a one-sentence description, the tool is far from self-contained. An agent would not know what 'classified' means, what the output looks like, or how the parameters interact.

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 100% of parameters with per-field hints (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), but the tool-level purpose is so unclear that the relationship between these heterogeneous parameters and the tool's behavior remains 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 'Show how this request is classified' does not specify what the tool actually does, what resource it operates on, or what 'compatibility' refers to. It is too vague to distinguish from general classification or validation utilities.

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 any sibling tool. The description gives no conditions, examples, or exclusions that would help select it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden itself. It does disclose the HTTP method (HEAD) and the output scope (status only), which is meaningful. It omits error/redirect behavior and does not explain that most schema parameters are discarded shape checks.

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. Every word contributes to identifying the method, target, and output scope.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-clause description is incomplete. It does not specify what 'status' means in the return value and does not address the non-URL parameters that the schema accepts.

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 parameter details in the description. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters and does not clarify that 'url' is the primary relevant input among the nine optional fields.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: HEAD a public URL and return only status. This distinguishes it from full-fetch tools like web-fetch and from browser checks like browser-url-ok. However, the description does not reconcile with the 9 unrelated optional parameters in the schema, so it is not a perfect 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?

The phrase 'return status only' implies using this tool when only an HTTP status is needed rather than full content, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is also no guidance for choosing among the many optional parameters.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only reveals that the URL path is discarded, but it does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., whether it validates, extracts components, or just checks the shape), nor any side effects or error behavior. For a parsing tool, this is a significant gap—an agent cannot predict the output or failure modes.

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

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

The description is very concise—two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary context, bordering on under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Still, it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is clearly incomplete. It does not explain why the schema includes unrelated parameters like city, feed, json, and zone, nor how they relate to a Figma URL shape check. An agent cannot determine the full scope of the tool's behavior or when to supply these parameters. This is a major gap.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. However, the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Worse, the phrase 'Path discarded' may confuse the 'path' input parameter (a file path to check) with the URL's path component, as they are different concepts. The description fails to clarify the role of the many unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) which are not mentioned at all.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('a Figma file URL'), and explicitly notes the path is discarded. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, which have different scopes. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling URL-related tools (e.g., normalize-url, browser-url-ok, domain-shape). It does not state any exclusions or conditions that would select this tool over alternatives. The usage context is only implied by the name, not explicit.

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 the most important trait, that no disk access occurs. But it does not mention that the other accepted inputs are validated and discarded, what the return value is, or what 'safe' means (syntax only vs. existence), so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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

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

The description is two short sentences, front-loads the action and resource, and contains zero filler words. The brevity is a strength, though it leaves out contextual information that would need to be added elsewhere.

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, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is far too thin. It addresses only the path parameter, never explains the other eight inputs, the return format, or the selection rules, so an agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has an explanatory description, which is the baseline case. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating the no-disk-access point for path, and it does not explain how the nine optional parameters relate or whether one or many should be supplied.

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 path looks safe') and a key non-behavior ('No disk access'), which makes the core purpose clear and separates it from disk-accessing tools. However, it never acknowledges the other eight parameters in the schema (url, json, zone, etc.), so the stated purpose is narrower than the actual tool surface.

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 only usage hint is 'No disk access,' which implies a safe syntactic check rather than a filesystem probe, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. With 27 sibling tools, an agent gets no help choosing file-path-ok over wiki-title-ok, domain-shape, or other shape-checking 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. It only says 'parse', but does not disclose that other fields are discarded, whether URL validation occurs, what the output format is, or any error 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 one-sentence description is concise but drastically under-specified for a 9-parameter tool. It lacks any structural breakdown and fails to front-load essential context about scope and 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?

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no context about actual scope, return value, or when to invoke it, leaving an agent without enough information 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description does not map any parameters to its purpose. The schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') and do not align with parsing owner/repo, adding no meaningful connection between parameters and the tool's stated function.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action: parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL, with a verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, and the broad schema suggests the tool actually performs generic shape checks.

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 gives no context, exclusions, 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 carries the full burden. It discloses zero behavioral traits: no return format, no side effects, no prerequisites, and no handling of the listed parameters. The agent has no idea what invoking this tool will do or produce.

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 (one short phrase) but under-specified. It lacks essential content such as the operation, output, or parameter relevance, making it closer to a placeholder than a useful definition. Front-loading is irrelevant when there's no substantive information.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly insufficient. It fails to explain what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or any side effects. An agent cannot correctly select or invoke this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no meaning beyond that; it doesn't clarify which parameter relates to 'common IANA timezone names' (likely 'zone') or how the others fit. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents 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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase with no verb or action. It doesn't state what the tool actually does (e.g., lists, validates, or retrieves zones), and it barely distinguishes from the sibling 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. It borders on tautology since 'iana-zones' already implies 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It mentions 'for clock calls' but doesn't explain how this relates to siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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

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

The description discloses that the key is 'discarded' after checking, which implies no persistence or side effects. However, it does not state whether the tool performs any validation, returns a boolean, or throws errors. With no annotations, the agent has limited insight into the actual behavior beyond the simple check.

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

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

The description is concise at just two sentences, but it omits essential details about the expected input format and output. It is well-structured but lacks the content needed to be truly effective, so it earns a middle 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 and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the result, or why the parameters are structured as they are. The vague and irrelevant parameter descriptions further reduce completeness, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently.

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 descriptions are generic and unrelated to Jira keys. Parameter names like 'ref', 'url', 'city', 'feed', 'json', etc., with descriptions such as 'Git ref name' or 'City name for a public weather hint', are clearly mismatched with the tool's purpose. This is misleading and provides no meaningful semantics for the tool's actual input.

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 'Check a Jira issue key shape' states a clear action, but it does not specify what constitutes a valid Jira key shape (e.g., project key format, numeric ID) or what the tool returns. It is not distinguished from sibling shape-checking tools like 'domain-shape' or 'github-repo-shape', so an agent may not know when this is the right choice.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools that check other kinds of shapes, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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

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

The description mentions 'Values discarded' which is a behavioral note, but it does not disclose how the other parameters are treated, whether there are side effects, or what the output format is. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and front-loads no key information. It is under-specified rather than 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?

With 9 parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use the tool, what the output is, or which parameter is the JSON object. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool 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 descriptions cover all 9 parameters, so the schema provides the parameter meaning. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, and it does not clarify which parameter is the JSON object, which is 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 clear action (count keys) and resource (JSON object), but it is ambiguous which of the 9 parameters is the JSON object. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like validate-json, so an agent cannot be sure what exactly this tool does with the other parameters.

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 any context or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explain how the nine schema parameters (ref, city, feed, json, zone, etc.) relate to the URL operation—whether they are ignored, used as extras, or error triggers. This omission leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's actual behavior beyond the single 'url' parameter.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the dropped components are stated immediately. Every word earns its place.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the primary URL behavior but fails to address the purpose of the other eight parameters, leaving agents confused about whether they are valid inputs or ignored. It also does not describe the output format (string? object?) for 'origin, host, path', which is essential for using the result correctly. The description is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics for any parameter—it only mentions URL implicitly. It does not clarify how the 'url' parameter interacts with the others or what the expected input format is beyond what the schema states (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite').

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 function: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.' It specifies the exact resource (URL) and the action (return normalized components), which distinguishes it from generic fetch or validation tools. The specificity is high.

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 its siblings (e.g., browser-url-ok, figma-url-shape). It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the function alone. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Prompt discarded,' which is ambiguous and does not explain side effects, requirements, or how the parameters are used. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it is severely 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 extremely brief (two sentences), but this is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. It lacks necessary detail, and the sentences do not earn their place because they provide minimal actionable information.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with the parameters, what the three-step thinking template consists of, or any expected behavior, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so it remains at baseline without enhancing meaning.

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 ('Return') and a resource ('a three-step thinking template'), but the resource is undefined and there is no differentiation from sibling tools. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity and does not clarify what the template is for or how it relates to the tool 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without a basis 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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output (a timestamp) and says nothing about side effects, error conditions, or how the input parameters are handled (despite the schema noting some are 'discarded'). This is a critical gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. This is not conciseness but rather a failure to include necessary information. The description is not front-loaded with key details because there are none.

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 complexity of the input schema (9 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what the tool does with the parameters, what it returns, or how to use it correctly. An agent cannot make an informed decision about invoking this tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% – each parameter has a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no meaning beyond that, but per the rubric, a high-coverage schema gives a baseline of 3. The description does not help an agent understand how parameters relate to the timestamp output.

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' is a bare statement that names a resource but does not explain why the tool accepts 9 unrelated optional parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones' which also relate to time. It is not a tautology but lacks the specificity needed to understand the tool's actual function.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the odd mix of parameters (e.g., 'zone', 'city', 'json'), an agent has no idea when this tool is appropriate or how it differs from related tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the body is discarded, which is a notable side effect. However, it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, an error), whether it throws on invalid JSON, or how it handles edge cases. This is a gap for a validation tool, but the main behavior is at least partially transparent.

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—two short sentences—with the primary action front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition. It is a model of brevity.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also lacks any usage guidelines or context about when to invoke it. While the schema fully documents parameters, the absence of return-value information and usage guidance makes the definition only minimally complete for an agent to confidently call it.

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% coverage, with each of the 9 parameters having a description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond the generic 'body', relying entirely on the schema. Since the schema fully documents each parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('a body is valid JSON'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which perform JSON validation. The mention that the body is discarded adds a precise side effect, making the purpose even clearer.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. While no sibling tool performs the same function, the description does not explicitly state when an agent should select it, such as 'Use when you need to verify a JSON string before parsing.' The purpose is clear but the usage context is left entirely to inference.

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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function, but does not disclose that most of the 9 parameters are discarded, nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, or output structure. The schema descriptions partially cover parameter behavior, but the description adds no extra context.

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, front-loading the essential purpose. It is not bloated and is easy to read. However, its brevity borders on under-specification given the complex schema, but as a concise statement it is acceptable.

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 and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that only 'city' matters, what the return value looks like, or any constraints (e.g., city name format, Open-Meteo limitations). An agent calling this tool would lack critical information to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any nuance beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions. It mentions 'city' but the schema already describes it. The description does not clarify that only city is used or explain the role of other parameters, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: retrieving current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like geo-hint or timezone, and the large parameter list introduces ambiguity about what the tool actually accomplishes. The core purpose is understandable but not fully clarified in relation to its schema.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that only the 'city' parameter is relevant or that other parameters are ignored, leaving the agent without direction on how to call it appropriately. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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

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

The description mentions 'Body discarded' which is a behavioral detail, but it does not disclose potential errors, timeouts, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it only partially fulfills this.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 omits the broader context of the tool, especially the purpose of the numerous non-URL parameters. It fails to provide a complete picture, leaving the agent unsure how to interpret the schema.

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 description focuses solely on a 'public URL', yet the schema includes many unrelated parameters (e.g., ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query). This mismatch means the description does not meaningfully explain the purpose of these parameters, despite each having its own schema description.

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 fetches HTTP status and content type for a public URL, with the body discarded. This is specific and unambiguous, making the primary purpose easy to grasp.

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 the many siblings like fetch-status, normalize-url, or browser-url-ok. The description lacks any indication of appropriate use cases or conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, data retention, and failure modes itself; it only says 'title discarded' but no title parameter exists. It does not mention whether the check hits a live API or has rate limits.

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 it is misleadingly terse and omits necessary context about parameter usage and return behavior. Front-loading the title check does not help when the params contradict it.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, status code, error message). Given nine optional parameters and no required ones, the definition leaves the agent without enough context 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?

Although schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, they describe unrelated concepts such as Git refs, JSON validation, and timezone names. The descriptions do not explain how any parameter relates to checking a Wikipedia title, so semantic coverage is effectively zero.

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

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

The description says the tool checks whether a Wikipedia title exists, but none of the nine parameters is a title; the params are unrelated (url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query, ref). This mismatch makes the actual purpose very 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 given for when to use this tool versus siblings like browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or normalize-url. The description does not explain conditions for choosing it.

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