SHA-1, input discarded

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states that page content is not stored, which is one side-effect trait. It does not disclose whether network requests are made, whether the operation is read-only, or any other potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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

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

The description is brief, directly to the point, and contains no unnecessary words. Two sentences efficiently convey the core function and a key side-effect limitation.

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 presence of four parameters that suggest multiple modes (URL, host, JSON, timezone), the description does not provide enough context to understand when or how to use each parameter. The tool is not fully self-explanatory, leaving the agent to guess the intended usage pattern.

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 description, but they do not align with the tool's stated purpose. The description only mentions URL, yet there are parameters for host, json, and zone that imply different functions. The relationship between these parameters and the tool's behavior is not explained, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 that this tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which is a specific and actionable verb-resource pair. However, the presence of unrelated parameters (json, zone) and sibling tools like normalize-url creates minor ambiguity about the exact scope, so it is not a perfect 5.

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

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

The description gives a clear context: when you need host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, use this tool. It also implies a side-effect limitation with 'Page content is not stored.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use alternative tools or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement 'No identifiers are retained' discloses one privacy behavior, but it does not describe side effects, read-only status, or what happens with the request. With no annotations, the description leaves most behavioral aspects undocumented.

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

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

The description is short and has no redundant or promotional language, but it is too under-specified to be effective. It is concise in length yet lacks meaningful 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 description does not explain what the tool returns, what inputs are expected, or how it relates to the sibling tools. With four optional parameters and no output schema, the context is far too incomplete for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.

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

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

The schema already describes all four parameters and the description adds no additional meaning about how or when to use url, host, json, or zone. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score 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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify the tool's core function or resource. It fails to explain what compatibility means or what classification is being performed, making it nearly as ambiguous as the tool name.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer one of the many sibling tools such as normalize-url or validate-json. The description does not provide any selection criteria or 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 and the description does not disclose any side effects, though the schema hints that json input is validated and discarded. The tool's actual behavior beyond splitting hostnames is left 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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It contains no redundant wording, though it sacrifices 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?

With no output schema and only a one-line description, the tool does not explain what result is returned, how the optional parameters affect execution, or when the tool is appropriate. An agent cannot reliably invoke or interpret this tool based on the provided context.

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 each parameter with a short description, but the tool description adds no meaning to how url, json, and zone relate to the stated purpose. Some parameter descriptions (e.g., url: normalize or cite) do not align with splitting a hostname, leaving the semantics confusing.

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

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

The description states a specific action (split a hostname into labels) but does not explain how the url, json, and zone parameters relate to that action, nor what the output looks like. It does not sufficiently distinguish this from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to select this tool over the available alternatives such as normalize-url, iana-zones, or validate-json. The description lacks any context about expected input combinations or prerequisites.

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 of disclosing side effects and read-only behavior. It does not mention whether the tool only reads data, performs validation, or has any side effects. The parameter descriptions mentioning 'normalize', 'cite', and 'validate' further obscure the 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 is very brief and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded in a single phrase, but the brevity sacrifices clarity.

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

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

The tool has four optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description gives no information about expected inputs, return value, or common usage. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to invoke the tool correctly in a real task.

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

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

Although every parameter has a schema description, three of the four parameters (url, host, json) seem unrelated to IANA timezone names, and the main description does not clarify their role. The parameter descriptions appear copied from other contexts, leaving an agent uncertain about what input is actually expected.

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 rather than a clear statement of what the tool does. It does not explicitly say whether it returns a list, validates a zone, or performs some other action, so an agent cannot confidently infer its 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like timezone or utc-time. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a clock-related context but does not explain when this tool is preferred or how it differs from alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not mention side effects, network behavior, error handling, or output format. It only hints at the return being 'group counts only', which 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 main description is concise, but the parameter descriptions add noise and confusion due to their irrelevance. The overall structure is compact but not coherent.

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

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

There is no output schema, no annotations, and the parameters do not align with the stated purpose. The tool definition is incomplete and likely erroneous, leaving the agent without essential context.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters, they are clearly mismatched with the tool's purpose. 'json' is described as validation text and 'zone' as timezone, both irrelevant to fetching robots.txt. This misleads the agent severely.

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: fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like citation or validate-json, though the parameter list seems mismatched.

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, nor any context about robots.txt inspection. The description is too terse to convey appropriate use cases.

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 a key behavioral detail. However, it does not address potential errors (e.g., invalid URLs), authentication needs, or side effects beyond the transformation.

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, consisting of two short sentences. It conveys the core functionality without unnecessary detail or verbosity.

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 simplicity, the description omits critical context such as parameter explanations and the apparent mismatch between the description and the schema. It lacks sufficient detail for an agent to use the tool correctly, especially with the confusing parameter list.

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 adds no meaning to the parameters. The input schema lists url, host, json, and zone with descriptions that are unrelated to URL normalization, creating confusion. The description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they relate to the tool's 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 clearly states the tool returns origin, host, and path from a URL and that query/fragment are dropped. It identifies the resource (URL) and the specific operation (normalize), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like citation 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios or conditions for using normalize-url, nor does it reference sibling tools or give examples.

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

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

There are no annotations and the description does not disclose side effects, return values, permissions, or error behavior. The phrase 'input discarded' hints at some side effect but is not explained.

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 but fails to communicate essential information. It is not effectively concise because critical purpose and usage details are omitted.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the tool's role relative to sibling tools like 'normalize-url' or 'validate-json'. The tool's behavior and expected results are entirely unspecified.

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?

Parameters have individual descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), but these do not relate to 'SHA-1' or 'input discarded'. The purpose of each parameter in the context of the tool is not articulated.

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 'SHA-1, input discarded' is cryptic and ambiguous. 'SHA-1' could imply hashing, but 'input discarded' contradicts typical hashing behavior, leaving the actual purpose unclear.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context for appropriate invocation scenarios.

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

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

There are no annotations and the description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, read-only/read-write behavior, or error handling. The user cannot infer whether this tool modifies data or is purely informational.

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 and grammatically simple, but it is too sparse to be useful. It omits essential details about functionality and parameter usage, making it under-informative rather than appropriately concise.

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

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

Given the tool's apparent simplicity, the description still fails to explain what the catalog contains, how to query it, or how the listed parameters relate to the tool's purpose. The description is incomplete and leaves the user unable to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

The parameters (url, host, json, zone) are described with phrases like 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', which have no apparent connection to an HTTP status code catalog. The parameter descriptions are confusing and likely mismatched, providing no clarity on how to use the tool.

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

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

The description states it is a 'catalog of common HTTP status codes' but lacks a specific verb or action (e.g., look up, list, retrieve). It is unclear whether the tool returns a single code, a list, or performs a lookup. The purpose is too vague to differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json or timezone.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or examples. The description gives no context for selecting this tool over the sibling 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 only states the basic function and does not explain what happens with invalid timezone names, whether network access is required, what the response structure looks like, or whether the tool may reject unexpected parameters. Additionally, the schema includes unrelated parameters (url, host, json) that are not mentioned in the description, creating confusion about tool behavior and potentially misleading agents.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and free of filler. It states the core purpose immediately. However, its brevity omits critical details (output format, error behavior, and the role of extra parameters), so while concise, it does not fully earn its place by covering essential information.

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

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

For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least mention the return value or error handling. It does neither. Moreover, the presence of three unrelated parameters in the schema is unexplained, making the tool's interface confusing and incomplete from an agent's perspective. The description is far from sufficient for reliable invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a clear description (e.g., zone: 'IANA timezone name'). The tool description, however, only references 'named IANA timezone', implying zone is the only relevant parameter, while the schema exposes url, host, and json without any explanation of their relevance to timezone lookup. This mismatch means the description does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema and does not clarify which parameters are actually used.

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 time in a named IANA timezone' clearly states the verb (get current time), the resource (IANA timezone), and the scope (named timezone). It distinguishes from siblings like 'utc-time' (which returns UTC time) and 'iana-zones' (which lists zones). However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., whether it returns a formatted string, timestamp, or includes offset), so it is clear but not fully precise.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'utc-time' or 'iana-zones'. It does not mention any conditions for selection or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient.

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 full burden is on the description, but it only states the output and does not disclose whether parameters are ignored, whether there are side effects, or any other behavioral traits.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse and act on.

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 too minimal to be complete: it does not specify the timestamp format, how to handle the unrelated schema parameters, or what the tool returns beyond a timestamp.

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 lists four unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone), and the description provides no clarification on whether they are accepted, ignored, or required. This is highly confusing for an apparently parameterless timestamp tool.

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

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

The description 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly indicates the tool's core purpose and output, and it is distinct enough from sibling tools like timezone and 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timezone or iana-zones. Any usage inference is left 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?

The description discloses that the body is discarded, but it does not explain the return value, behavior on invalid JSON, validation strictness, or whether errors are raised. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and only partially covers behavioral implications.

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

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

The text is concise and free of fluff, but the brevity contributes to ambiguity around the 'body' wording and the unexplained extra parameters. It is short but not optimally clear.

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 lacks any explanation of output format, success/failure behavior, or how to interpret the result. The mismatched parameter list is not reconciled, and there is no example or additional context, making the overall description incomplete for an agent.

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

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

Although every parameter has a schema description, most are unrelated to the stated purpose: url/host/zone appear to be copied from another tool and have no relevance to JSON validation. The description adds no clarification for these parameters and does not explain the relationship between 'body' and 'json'.

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 core action ('check whether a body is valid JSON') and that the body is discarded, but it refers to a 'body' instead of the actual 'json' parameter and leaves the purpose of the unrelated url/host/zone parameters unclear. This makes the purpose only partially clear.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios. The only implicit usage is 'when you need to validate JSON', which is minimal.

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