Sentence count, text discarded

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states that task text is discarded, suggesting a read-only, non-retentive operation, and that the tool returns connection methods. It does not over-promise side effects, which is transparent enough for a discovery 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?

Three sentences contain no fluff, front-load the main purpose and provide the most decision-relevant caveat to process in the final sentence. Every part is either useful or already woven into an example task category.

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 9-parameter schema and absence of output schema, the description is somewhat under-specified: it doesn't explain how parameters relate to gateway selection or how the returned connection methods are meant to be used. However, the parameter schema itself is detailed, covering the remaining context for a simple index lookup 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline starts at 3. The description mentions task categories like weather, search, scrape, and voice, but does not map them to specific parameters or add meaning beyond what the schema already provides with each parameter's 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 states a specific verb and resource: find a public pay-per-call tool gateway, and names example tasks (weather, search, scrape, voice) it covers. It does not explicitly distinguish among sibling tools, but the meta-index purpose is apparent.

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 implies when to use the tool by listing task examples, but it provides no when-not guidance or explicit alternatives. It relies on sibling tool names and schema descriptions to signal routing decisions.

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 states that no browser is launched, which is a useful behavioral hint. However, it does not disclose side effects, what happens with the non-URL parameters, or whether any network requests are made. Given that annotations are absent, this minimal transparency 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 exceptionally concise, using only two short sentences. It avoids unnecessary detail and gets straight to the point, making it easy to read and understand at a glance.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and a description that only covers URL checking, the tool is severely under-described. The description does not explain why there are parameters like 'city', 'zone', or 'query', nor does it state what the tool returns. This is far from complete for practical use.

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 does not mention any of the parameters. The schema descriptions are generic and only hint at validation (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), but they do not clarify how these parameters relate to the tool's purpose of checking a URL. The tool description adds no meaning to the 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 clearly states the primary action: checking whether a URL can be opened. It also notes that no browser is launched, which clarifies the tool's non-invasive nature. However, it does not explain the relevance of the many unrelated parameters (e.g., city, zone, query), leaving some ambiguity about the tool's full scope.

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 playwright-url-ok or fetch-status. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is preferred.

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?

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Expression discarded,' which is cryptic and inconsistent with the schema. It does not clarify side effects, output format, or what the tool actually does with the inputs, and the mention of 'a+b' contradicts the parameter list. This is severely insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one clause) and front-loaded, but it is concise at the expense of clarity. It omits all substantive information and introduces a misleading purpose. Conciseness alone is not valuable when it obscures the tool's real function; a longer, accurate description would be preferable.

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 completely inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's true behavior, the role of each parameter, or the return value. The mismatch between description and schema leaves an agent with no reliable information to decide when and how to invoke 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 for its 9 parameters, each with a short explanation (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no information about parameters, so it does not enhance understanding. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents all parameters adequately, even though the description itself is useless here.

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 claims the tool evaluates a+b style arithmetic, but the input schema contains 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) with no arithmetic operands. This is actively misleading and fails to convey the actual purpose (which appears to be a generic shape-check tool given sibling names like domain-shape and file-path-ok). The description does not distinguish this from any sibling and provides a false resource and verb.

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. It does not state any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it does not reference any sibling tools. In fact, the description suggests a use case (arithmetic evaluation) that has no basis in the schema, which could lead an agent to invoke it incorrectly.

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 behavioral traits. It only states 'Page content is not stored,' which is a privacy note, but does not mention side effects, network behavior, error handling, or that many input parameters are discarded after checks. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with such a broad schema.

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, efficient sentence with the primary output front-loaded and an additional privacy note. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately brief for the stated function.

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?

Despite having 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description only explains the URL-related behavior. It does not clarify what happens with the other parameters (city, feed, json, etc.), which the schema indicates are discarded after checks, nor does it describe the return format beyond host/scheme/status. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to understand the tool's full scope.

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%, meaning all 9 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the core function: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is a specific verb+resource with a defined output. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, which may also return URL-related information.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be preferred. The agent is left without direction on selecting this over similar URL tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that 'No identifiers are retained' (a privacy note) but says nothing about side effects, read-only behavior, network access, or return format. This is insufficient for a tool with 9 optional parameters.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded, but it is under-specified. It is concise to the point of being uninformative, failing to earn its place with useful content.

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, yet the description provides almost no operational context. It does not state what inputs are required, how classification works, what the response contains, or any conditions. This is completely inadequate for an agent to decide whether or how to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema provides detailed meanings for each parameter (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), but the tool description does not explain how these parameters relate to the classification purpose or whether they are mutually exclusive.

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 'Show how this request is classified' – a vague purpose that does not specify what kind of classification, what input it expects, or what output it produces. It lacks a clear verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like domain-shape 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that appear to handle specific formats (URLs, JSON, timezones, etc.). The description does not mention alternatives or conditions for use.

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 that it does not perform WHOIS/ownership lookups, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it says nothing about side effects, network usage, or return format. Given the tool is likely a pure parse function, the lack of explicit 'read-only' or 'no side effects' is a minor gap, but the description still adds some value beyond the schema.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and constraint. There is no redundancy or filler; every word earns its place. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 severely incomplete for a tool with 9 diverse optional parameters (ref, url, city, feed, json, path, zone, query) and no output schema. It only addresses the 'host' parameter, leaving the purpose of the other eight entirely unexplained. An agent cannot infer when to pass a 'city' or 'zone' or 'json' to this tool. The lack of an output schema also means the description should explain what the tool returns, which it does not. 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so each of the 9 parameters is documented. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema—it only mentions 'hostname', which maps to the 'host' parameter. Since the schema already covers the parameters, the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Split') and the resource ('hostname') and explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data, which differentiates it from tools that might fetch such info. However, it does not name a specific sibling, so it misses the highest tier of clarity. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' is a useful negative constraint.

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 the many siblings (e.g., normalize-url, figma-url-shape, github-repo-shape). The only hint is the negative 'without WHOIS or ownership data', which implies it is not for ownership lookups, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide criteria 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?

The description discloses that it uses the HEAD method and returns only the status, which is a behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention the other capabilities hinted by the schema (e.g., validating JSON, checking timezone names). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only covers one use case. This partial transparency could mislead the agent into thinking the tool is only for URLs.

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 that immediately states the action and output. It's well-structured and front-loaded with the key information. No waste.

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 annotations, and no output schema. The description only addresses one use case (URL HEAD check) and ignores the other parameters entirely. This is inadequate for an agent to understand the full scope or how to use the tool for non-URL inputs. The lack of output format details also contributes to incompleteness.

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 provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter meaning. However, the description doesn't clarify which parameter is primary or how the others are used. Since the schema covers all parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'HEAD a public URL and return status only.' This clearly identifies the tool as a lightweight HTTP status checker. However, it doesn't distinguish from similar tools like browser-url-ok or playwright-url-ok, which also check URLs, so the differentiation is limited. The presence of many unrelated parameters in the schema (ref, city, json, etc.) is not addressed, which slightly muddies the purpose.

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. It doesn't mention that this is a quick HEAD check vs a full page load check, nor does it reference any sibling tools. The agent is left without criteria for tool 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Path discarded' exposes one behavior, but it does not state whether the URL is fetched, whether validation is syntactic only, what the return value is, or whether any side effects occur.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler or repeated schema content. 'Path discarded' is an informative addition, but the brevity leaves it under-explained for the surrounding 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?

Given nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse to support a correct call. It does not specify which argument should carry the Figma URL, what to do with the other the inputs, or what the parse result looks like.

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 and the description is not required to restate parameter purposes. However, the description does not clarify how the nine optional parameters relate to 'a Figma file URL' or which parameters are relevant for a normal call.

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 and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL') and adds a useful behavioral detail ('Path discarded'). This is enough to distinguish it from URL-normalization and fetch-status siblings, though the exact outcome of parsing is not stated.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs. normalize-url, browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or the other shape-check siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, so an agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

The 'No disk access' note is useful, but without annotations or an output schema the description does not state the return type, success/error behavior, or what 'looks safe' means.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded, but it is too terse to resolve the mismatch between the stated path-only purpose and the broad optional parameter list.

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 and no explanation of expected return values, edge cases, or whether the extra optional fields are ignored; an agent cannot confidently predict the tool's full behavior.

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?

Each parameter has a one-line schema description and coverage is 100%, but only `path` relates to the stated purpose and the eight other parameters are not connected to any described behavior, leaving invocation 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 says 'check whether a path looks safe' and notes no disk access, but the schema exposes eight unrelated optional inputs (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query), so the tool's actual scope is ambiguous.

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?

It does not say when to choose this tool over sibling validators such as domain-shape, browser-url-ok, or validate-json, nor does it explain how to handle the non-path 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 reveals only that Open-Meteo is used, implying an external network call, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, error behaviors, or that many parameters are discarded (though the schema hints at discarding for some fields). This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, it is too brief to convey essential information such as which parameter to use, making the conciseness a deficiency rather than a virtue.

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 required fields, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not specify the expected input, the return format (e.g., JSON with lat/long), error handling, or how to differentiate from sibling tools. An agent would be unable to call this correctly without opening the schema and guessing which parameter is relevant.

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 the tool description itself does not clarify which parameter is the place identifier. The schema descriptions are generic and some are marked as 'discarded after the check', making it unclear how to request coordinates. The description adds no value over the schema in connecting parameters to the core purpose.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo. This distinguishes it from siblings like weather-hint (weather data) or timezone (timezone). However, it is ambiguous which of the 9 parameters identifies the place, as the description does not specify the input that maps to the location.

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. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools such as weather-hint or timezone. An agent would not know to use this instead of another tool for a given task.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention any side effects, read-only guarantees, or potential failures. The presence of many seemingly unrelated parameters further obscures the tool's actual 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 itself is concise, but the overall tool definition is bloated with 9 parameters, most of which have no relevance to the stated purpose. The structure is unnecessarily complex and not efficiently organized for the tool's actual function.

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 definition lacks essential context about why unrelated parameters are present or how they are handled. This incompleteness could lead an agent to incorrectly supply or interpret parameters, undermining the tool's usability.

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 all parameters with descriptions, most are clearly copied from other tools (e.g., 'city', 'feed', 'iana timezone') and are irrelevant to parsing a GitHub URL. The description does not clarify that only 'url' is used, making the parameter semantics misleading and 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 clearly states the tool's function: parsing owner and repo from a GitHub URL. It is specific and distinguishes this tool from other shape-related sibling tools like domain-shape or figma-url-shape.

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. It does not mention that only the 'url' parameter is relevant or that other parameters are ignored, leaving ambiguity in usage.

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. The description only says it counts stories and discards titles. It does not mention side effects, whether the call is read-only, what happens with the supplied parameters, or the return format. The only hint is 'Titles discarded,' which is ambiguous.

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 terse (two sentences). While it front-loads the main function, it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations. The brevity is not efficiency; it omits critical information, making it inadequate.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, the return value, any constraints, or prerequisites. An agent cannot infer how to correctly invoke this tool from 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?

The input schema has 9 parameters with descriptions, but they are all unrelated to the tool's purpose (e.g., git ref, URL, city, feed). The tool description does not mention any parameters or clarify how they are used. Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema descriptions are misleading; the description fails to add any meaning or reconcile the mismatch.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' This is clear and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like fetch-status or web-fetch, which could also retrieve HN data. The extra clause 'Titles discarded' hints at output behavior but is not enough to differentiate.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent without any decision support for tool 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides no information about side effects, return values, permissions, or limitations. There is nothing beyond the name and a vague reference to clock calls.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks a clear action or purpose and does not front-load any critical information. The brevity does not add value; it simply omits necessary detail.

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?

This is a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides almost no context about what the tool does, when to use it, or what to expect. It is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke it without further schema inspection or guesswork.

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 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions are individually clear (e.g., 'zone' is an IANA timezone name), but the description adds no additional context tying the parameters to the tool's purpose. Many parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) seem unrelated to timezones, and the description does not clarify why they exist.

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 without a clear verb or action. It does not state what the tool actually does (list, validate, return, etc.), though it hints at a reference for clock operations. It is vague and does not distinguish from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'.

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' suggests a use case with clock-related tools, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It leaves the agent to infer the 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, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing effects. It mentions fetching and returning counts, but does not clarify side effects, error behavior, whether the operation is read-only, or how the many extraneous parameters are treated.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words or filler. It is concise and directly states the tool's core action and output.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to give an agent enough context to call the tool correctly. It does not explain which parameter is required, what the returned counts look like, or how to handle failures.

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 are generic and mostly unrelated to robots.txt (e.g., city, feed, query), and the tool description does not map any parameter to the actual target URL or host. The description adds no clarifying meaning to the 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 clearly states the tool fetches a public robots.txt and returns group counts only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like web-fetch or fetch-status that would fetch entire content.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention which of the nine parameters should be supplied. The description gives no practical invocation context.

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 disclosing behavior. It only states that the key is 'discarded', implying no persistence, but omits any details about return values (e.g., boolean, error object), side effects, or how validation results are communicated. This is a significant gap for a tool whose primary purpose is validation.

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, but brevity is not conciseness when it omits essential information. It lacks structure—no breakdown of purpose, usage, or output. While it wastes no words, it fails to communicate necessary details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently 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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what 'shape' means, what a valid Jira key looks like, what the tool returns (e.g., true/false, error messages), or how the various parameters relate to the check. An agent would have no idea how to interpret results or handle edge cases. This is a major gap in usability.

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 provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, but since the schema is thorough, the parameters are adequately documented. The phrase 'Key discarded' might relate to the ref or query, but it is not clear enough to enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Check') and resource ('Jira issue key shape'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not define what constitutes a valid 'shape' (e.g., project key + issue number format), nor does it differentiate itself from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. The phrase 'Key discarded' hints at a validation-only purpose but leaves the actual check criteria undefined.

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 sibling shape-validation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The description gives no signal about what kind of input this expects or how it fits into a workflow, leaving the agent to infer applicability 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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the body is discarded, but says nothing about network side effects, rate limits, error handling, or behavior for the other 8 parameters. The single-sentence description is insufficient for a tool with such broad parameter coverage.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, two short sentences with no fluff. Information is front-loaded: the main action and the key behavioral detail (body discarded) appear first. It is not overly verbose, though the brevity contributes to incompleteness.

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 annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only addresses a single URL-check scenario. It fails to explain what the tool does for the other parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) and provides no context on expected return values. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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: returning HTTP status for a public library docs URL and discarding the body. This is a clear verb-resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, and the schema contains 8 other parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) that the description ignores, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual scope.

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 its many siblings. The phrase 'Body discarded' hints at a lightweight check, but there is no explicit mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or contexts where this tool is preferred. The agent is left to infer usage.

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 does add one behavioral trait beyond the tool name: 'Values discarded' tells the agent that values are ignored. But with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and still leaves key behavior unspecified, such as whether nested keys are counted, what the return value looks like, and whether there are 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 two short sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it 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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin. It does not explain whether to supply one parameter, several, or a JSON string, nor does it specify whether the count includes nested keys or returns a simple integer. An agent could easily invoke it incorrectly.

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 main description adds the useful semantic that values are irrelevant and discarded, but it does not clarify how the nine optional string parameters relate to 'a JSON object' or whether the tool counts keys in its own input object versus a JSON text 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 states a specific operation, 'Count keys', and a specific resource, 'JSON object', and adds that values are discarded. This makes it distinguishable from counting tools like sentence-count, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from shape-validation siblings or clarify that the input object itself is the JSON object being counted.

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 intended usage is implied: use this when you need the number of keys in a JSON object. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as validate-json, so an agent must infer the routing.

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 query and fragment are dropped, which is useful. But with no annotations, it must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention input requirements (absolute vs. relative URLs), error handling for invalid URLs, return format, or that other parameters are ignored. This is a significant gap for a tool with a broad schema.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and then a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff 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?

Given 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain that only 'url' is needed, what to expect in the return value (format, structure), or how the tool handles edge cases. The broad schema without clarification makes this definition insufficient for reliable use.

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

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

The schema lists 9 parameters with individual descriptions, but the tool description only implicitly references 'url'. It doesn't clarify that other parameters like 'ref', 'city', 'feed', etc. are discarded or irrelevant to normalization. An agent would be confused about which parameter to use and why the schema has so many unrelated fields. The description adds no guidance beyond the schema's existing text.

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, and it mentions dropping query and fragment. This gives a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from siblings like browser-url-ok or domain-shape. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from alternatives, and the presence of many unrelated parameters in the schema muddies the focus.

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 other URL-related siblings such as browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or web-fetch. It doesn't mention scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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 reveal that no browser is launched, but it does not explain what actually happens for each of the nine accepted parameters, whether network requests occur, what side effects exist, or what the response format is. For a tool with such heterogeneous inputs, 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 concise (one sentence) but not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It front-loads a narrow purpose while omitting the multi-parameter nature, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise. A tool with nine parameters and many siblings requires more structure and detail.

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 high complexity (9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's actual scope, how to choose among parameters, what results are returned, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the current description.

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

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

The schema covers all parameters (100%), so the baseline is 3, but the tool description adds zero semantic value for parameters. It does not explain that parameters are likely mutually exclusive, which one to use for a given task, or how they map to the described 'URL check'. The description's narrow focus on URLs contradicts the parameter set, leaving agents to infer parameter usage from cryptic schema descriptions alone.

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 verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened'), but the input schema exposes nine unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.), implying the tool is a multi-purpose validator. The description fails to capture this broader scope, making it misleading about the actual functionality and not distinguishing it from siblings like browser-url-ok 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 provided on when to use this tool versus any of the 28 sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this specific tool. The description is a single generic sentence that offers no decision-making support.

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 must carry behavioral context. It states 'Query discarded', which discloses a memory/side-effect behavior that is relevant for agents. It also notes a similar semantic in query's schema description. However, it does not mention the behavior of the other parameter(s)-whether they are also discarded, ignored, or used—nor does it describe normal response format or side effects beyond disposal.

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: one stating the action and one stating the discard behavior. No filler, fully front-loaded. This is appropriately concise for a simple operation.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is insufficient. It omits return format (e.g., integer character count), which of the parameters to select, and the significance of the other fields. The tool's complexity and lack of structured context call for more explanation to let an agent call it correctly.

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

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

The schema descriptions already cover all 9 parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The main description adds only 'search query' context, aligning to the 'query' parameter. It does not explain how or whether the other 8 optional parameters relate to the tool's operation, which is a notable gap outside the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 ('Count') and resource ('characters in a search query'), which clearly identifies the core action. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like sentence-count or memory-key-count by the explicit focus on 'search query'. However, the input schema contains 9 unrelated optional parameters, creating mild ambiguity about which parameter constitutes the 'search query'.

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 such as memory-key-count or sentence-count. The description does not state use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, and the 9-parameter schema with no required fields further blurs when to call it. An agent cannot determine from the description which of the many provided strings to pass or when it is applicable.

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 behavioral disclosure. It only says 'text discarded,' which is ambiguous and does not explain side effects, external calls, error behavior, or what a 'shape check' entails. The description is opaque.

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

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

The description is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits essential information and does not front-load any actionable guidance, making it ineffective.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters and no output schema, a complete description would clarify the purpose, input semantics, and return value. This description provides almost none of that, making it severely inadequate for an agent to call 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 coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaning to the 9 parameters. The schema descriptions themselves mention 'discarded' and 'shape check' but do not clarify how they relate to sentence counting, and the description does not indicate which parameter, if any, contains the text to be counted.

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 'Sentence count, text discarded' merely restates the tool name without specifying what text is being counted, what constitutes a sentence, or what the tool returns. It is a tautology that fails to identify the resource or action 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any of the 28 sibling tools. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over alternatives like search-query-len or hn-front-count.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it's a catalog, implying a read-only reference, but doesn't mention that many parameters are discarded, that it performs no network calls, or what the output format is. There is no contradiction, but the description leaves the tool's behavior largely unspecified.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence with no waste, but it's under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations. It lacks critical information about behavior, use cases, or parameter roles, so the brevity works against clarity rather than enhancing 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does with the inputs, what it returns, or how it relates to the catalog of status codes. An agent has almost no basis to invoke this 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?

The schema covers all 9 parameters with individual descriptions, but the tool description doesn't connect them to the catalog's purpose. The parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) seem unrelated to HTTP status codes, and the description offers no explanation of how they are used or why they matter. This creates confusion rather than adding semantic 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 states it's a catalog of HTTP status codes, which gives a basic idea of the resource, but it doesn't specify what operations it supports (lookup, list, explanation) or how it differentiates from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok. It's not a tautology, but it's vague and doesn't help an agent decide when this is the right 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 27 siblings. It doesn't mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent would have to infer when a 'short catalog' is needed, and the description gives no explicit or implicit direction.

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 burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded, indicating input is ignored. However, it does not explain the nature of the template, whether it is deterministic, or any side effects (though none are expected). This is partial transparency.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is concise but omits essential information about the template's format or usage, so it is not appropriately sized for the tool's needs.

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 (all effectively ignored) and no output schema, the description should explain what the returned template looks like and when it is useful. It provides neither, leaving an agent to guess the template's content and applicability. This is a significant 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% with each parameter individually described, mostly noting it is discarded after a shape check. The tool description adds no new meaning; it only repeats the discard notion. The schema already carries the parameter semantics, so the description adds no extra 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 states the action 'Return a three-step thinking template' with a clear resource (a template). It distinguishes from siblings by indicating a template generation role, though it does not describe the template's contents or steps, leaving some 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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., calc-eval, web-fetch). The description does not mention alternatives, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that only the 'zone' parameter is relevant and that all other parameters are ignored (despite the schema noting they are discarded). It also does not describe the output format or behavior with invalid timezone names. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with a large irrelevant parameter set.

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 wasted words, which earns it a moderate score. However, for a tool with 9 parameters and no other explanatory text, it is under-specified. It is concise but not appropriately sized for the complexity of 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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to indicate which parameter is essential, what the return value looks like, or that most parameters are irrelevant. An agent would not know how to correctly invoke this tool based on this description alone.

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

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

The schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'zone' parameter is the key, but it does not clarify which parameter to use or that others are ignored. It does not improve upon the schema's explicit 'discarded' notes.

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 core function: returning current time for a named IANA timezone. It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like utc-time or iana-zones, which could lead to confusion about which to choose.

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. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely a statement of function without any usage context.

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. The description says only that it returns a timestamp, but the schema suggests the tool accepts and discards various inputs (URLs, file paths, JSON, etc.). The description does not explain what happens with these parameters, whether there are side effects, or what the response contains. This is misleading and inadequate for a tool with 9 parameters.

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

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

The description is concise at one sentence, which is appropriate for a simple tool, but it is under-specified given the complex schema. It is front-loaded with the main purpose but omits any mention of parameters or behavior, making it incomplete rather than efficiently 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 9 optional parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the parameters are for, what the tool actually does with them, or what the return value looks like. 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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage for its parameters, the description adds nothing to clarify their relationship to the stated purpose. The parameters seem unrelated to a UTC timestamp, and the description does not explain how they are used or why they exist. The schema's own descriptions are self-contained but contradictory to the tool's stated function, so the description fails to bridge that 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 'Current UTC timestamp' is clear in isolation, but it directly conflicts with the input schema, which lists 9 parameters that are all described as being checked or discarded (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). This mismatch makes the tool's actual purpose ambiguous and misleading – an agent cannot tell if this returns a timestamp or performs shape validation. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'timezone' or 'iana-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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left to guess whether this should be used for simple time retrieval or for shape checks, given the schema.

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 'The body is discarded' but gives no explanation of what happens to the input or what side effects occur. There are no annotations to clarify read-only or destructive behavior, and the phrase 'discarded after the check' is ambiguous.

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 but fails to convey essential information. It is not concise in a useful way; it omits critical details and introduces irrelevant parameters without clarification, making the text more confusing than helpful.

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 and no output schema, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain the expected input format, return value, error conditions, or how the parameters relate to the tool's function. The description is grossly incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Although the schema covers all parameters, the descriptions are nonsensical in the context of JSON validation. For example, 'ref' is described as 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check', and 'city' as 'City name for a public weather hint'—these have no obvious relation to validating JSON. The meaning of 'json' is also unclear since it duplicates the tool's primary action.

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 'Check whether a body is valid JSON' but never defines what 'body' means. The parameter list includes unrelated fields like 'ref', 'url', 'city', and 'query', which are not explained in the context of JSON validation. This creates confusion about the tool's actual purpose.

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 'browser-url-ok' or 'fetch-status'. The description gives no conditions for invocation 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'via Open-Meteo', implying an external API call, but does not disclose what happens with the other eight parameters (which are seemingly irrelevant), whether there are rate limits, caching, or what the return format is. The description fails to explain that only 'city' is used and that the rest are discarded, which is a significant transparency 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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, its brevity sacrifices essential details that an agent needs, so while concise, it is under-specified.

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 and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not specify that only 'city' is relevant, does not describe the expected input format, does not mention any response structure, and does not address the presence of unrelated parameters. An agent cannot confidently call this tool based solely on the description and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the descriptions for most parameters (ref, url, feed, etc.) are clearly intended for other tools and are irrelevant to weather. The description does not clarify that only 'city' is needed, nor does it add any meaning beyond the schema's own per-parameter descriptions. An agent might be misled into thinking other parameters are relevant, so the description does not compensate for the schema's off-topic content.

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 (getting current temperature) and a resource (a city), naming the external provider (Open-Meteo). This distinguishes it from weather-unrelated siblings like geo-hint or timezone. However, the input schema contains 9 parameters, many with descriptions unrelated to weather (e.g., ref, url, feed), which could confuse an agent about the tool's actual scope. The description does not acknowledge this mismatch, slightly undermining its clarity.

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, exclusions, or compare it to siblings such as geo-hint or timezone. An agent receives no help in deciding between weather-hint and other hint 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the body is discarded, which is useful, but it fails to explain why the tool accepts nine unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.) that are all described as discarded after checks. It also omits any information about rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with a complex input schema.

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—and front-loads the core function and the body-discard behavior. Every sentence provides information, so it is efficient. However, it borders on under-specification, which is not the same as conciseness, but the structure itself is well-organized.

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, many of which seem unrelated to fetching a URL, and no output schema. The description only covers the URL fetch aspect and does not explain what the tool does with the other parameters or what the return value looks like. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from this description, making it incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics and does not explain the relationship between the URL and the other parameters. Since the schema handles parameter documentation, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description contributes no extra 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 clearly states the action ('HTTP status and content type') and the resource ('a public URL'), and adds the behavioral note that the body is discarded. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, so the purpose is clear but not distinguished from 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. The description only states what the tool does, leaving usage decisions entirely to the 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions only that 'Title discarded after the call,' but the schema includes multiple parameters and varying discard/check behaviors (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'discarded after the length check'). The description does not clarify what actually happens during the call—whether it validates existence, makes network requests, or simply performs shape validation. This is insufficient for an agent to predict side effects or safety.

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 short (two sentences), which is concise, but it is not effectively structured. The first sentence states a purpose, the second mentions a discard behavior, but neither provides useful detail. While brevity is good, the content is too sparse to be helpful, 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the role of each parameter, how to achieve the stated outcome, or what the result indicates (e.g., boolean, error message). An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the current description. It is completely inadequate for a multi-parameter tool of this complexity.

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 schema already describes each parameter. However, the description adds no clarity about how any parameter relates to the stated purpose of checking a Wikipedia title. There is no parameter that obviously corresponds to a Wikipedia title, and the description does not map parameters to the intended action. The description fails to add value beyond the schema and even introduces confusion by referencing a 'title' that does not appear 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 verb and resource ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists'), but the input schema has no parameter for a Wikipedia title (no 'title' field) and instead contains 9 unrelated parameters like 'ref', 'url', 'city', 'feed', etc. This mismatch makes the tool's actual purpose ambiguous and fails to distinguish it from sibling checker tools such as 'domain-shape' or 'file-path-ok'. The description misleads about what the tool does.

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. Sibling tools like 'search-query-len', 'normalize-url', and 'file-path-ok' appear to cover specific checks, but nothing here explains the intended context for this tool or which of its many parameters should be used for what purpose. An agent has no way to know if this is the correct tool for a given task.

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