TOML table count, body discarded

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Task text discarded' and hints that some parameters are discarded, but does not disclose side effects, dependencies, or what the tool does with the non-discarded parameters. The behavior is largely 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 very short and front-loaded, but its brevity is due to vagueness rather than efficiency. It contains two sentences but little useful information, so it is concise but not well-structured for decision-making.

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 output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (beyond vague items), how to use the parameters, or when it applies. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool with confidence.

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 tool description itself says nothing about the parameters. The schema descriptions are individual and often say 'discarded', yet the description does not explain how they integrate or which ones are relevant. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of overall parameter usage context.

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 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)' and lists outputs, but does not explain how the 9 input parameters map to this action. It is unclear what the tool actually does operationally with the parameters, making it hard for an agent to select it based on 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 any of the 28 siblings. No context, no exclusions, no mention of alternative tools. An agent has no basis to choose it over similar tools like 'web-fetch' or 'citation'.

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 no browser is launched, but it does not explain what 'can be opened' means (e.g., does it perform an HTTP request, check DNS, validate syntax?) or what the return value looks like. The parameter descriptions hint at 'shape checks' but are not integrated into the tool's stated 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 a single sentence, which is concise in length but under-specified given the tool's 9-parameter schema. Important information about behavior, return values, and parameter relationships is missing. It is not front-loaded with critical details; it merely states a basic 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 tool has a complex schema with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no context: it does not explain what the tool returns, how it determines if a URL is openable, or why it accepts such a wide variety of parameters. This is grossly incomplete for an agent to call it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. However, the tool description itself adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the schema descriptions are confusing (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') without clarifying how they relate to URL checking. The description fails to explain why these parameters exist or how they map 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 states 'Check whether a URL can be opened. No browser is launched,' which names a specific verb and resource. However, the input schema lists 9 diverse parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) that are unrelated to URL checking, and their descriptions mention 'shape checks' and 'discarded after' actions. The description does not reconcile this mismatch, making the tool's actual purpose vague and potentially misleading.

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 its siblings such as playwright-url-ok, fetch-status, or normalize-url. The description offers no context about preferred use cases, conditions, or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Expression discarded', which is cryptic and does not explain what happens to the many parameters, what the tool returns, or any side effects. The schema hints at 'shape check' behaviors, but the description contradicts that by focusing on arithmetic.

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 only one short sentence, but it is not effectively concise – it omits essential information and is under-specified. The structure offers no front-loading of key facts and leaves the agent without a usable understanding.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot infer what the tool does, what inputs are meaningful, or what to expect in return, making it nearly impossible to invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 9 parameters, but the description adds no value and even misleads by implying an expression input that does not exist. It fails to clarify the role of the parameters and contradicts their apparent shape-checking 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 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic' which is a specific verb and resource, but it is misleading because the input schema contains no expression parameter – instead it has URL, city, feed, host, etc. This does not match the tool name 'calc-eval' nor the actual parameters, making it unclear what the tool does and failing to distinguish it from siblings.

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 28 siblings. The description gives no context for selection, and the misleading arithmetic mention actively confuses rather than clarifies 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful note ('Page content is not stored') but omits critical behaviors: it does not mention that many parameters are discarded (as stated in the schema), whether any side effects occur, or any rate limits or auth requirements. This is minimal 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 two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. It is efficient and free of fluff. However, it is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity, but conciseness itself is well-executed.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers only the URL-related behavior and ignores the other parameters entirely, offering no explanation of when or why to use them. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool beyond the URL case.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema itself is rich enough (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not mislead but also does not compensate for any gaps.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), which is unambiguous for the URL aspect. However, it does not mention the tool's broader parameter set (e.g., ref, city, feed) or differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, so it is not fully complete.

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 fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. It only states what it returns, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent without any comparative 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 only states 'No identifiers are retained', which is a privacy note, but omits what the tool actually does with the input, whether it performs checks, what it returns, or any side effects. This is minimal coverage for a tool with no annotation support.

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

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

The description is concise at two sentences, but it is under-specified. It doesn't front-load the core purpose or provide any structured breakdown. Being short isn't valuable if it lacks substantive information.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what classification is returned, how each parameter influences the result, or any usage context. An agent cannot reliably decide to invoke this tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the 9 parameters already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters, which matches the baseline of 3. It neither helps nor hinders beyond the schema.

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

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

The description 'Show how this request is classified' is vague. It doesn't specify what 'classified' means, what kind of classification is performed, or what output to expect. The name 'compatibility' hints at a check but the description doesn't clarify. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json or domain-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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios that would select this tool over the many similar-looking siblings, nor any exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool operates without WHOIS/ownership data, which is a useful constraint, but it fails to disclose that most inputs are discarded after a shape check (as implied by the schema descriptions), that the tool appears to validate multiple input types, or what it returns. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified: it omits essential context about the tool's multi-parameter nature and behavioral constraints. Conciseness is appropriate in length but not in completeness; it does not 'earn its place' because it leaves the agent with more questions than answers.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description covers only one narrow aspect (hostname splitting). It does not explain the purpose of the other eight parameters, the tool's return value, side effects, or when to use it relative to the many sibling tools. For such a complex and ambiguous tool, the description is grossly inadequate.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning for the eight non-host parameters; it only implicitly suggests that the 'host' field is the intended input for hostname splitting. It does not clarify which parameter to use for other intended inputs or how the parameters interact. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description adds minimal value, but it does provide a hint about the primary use case.

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') and a clear resource, but it fails to reconcile with the input schema, which accepts nine different parameter types (ref, url, city, feed, json, path, zone, query). This mismatch makes the tool's actual purpose ambiguous: it appears to be a general 'shape check' tool rather than purely a hostname splitter. The description is not a tautology but is misleading about 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?

The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies a distinction from ownership-returning tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling shape tools (e.g., github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape) and the description does not explain when domain-shape is the right choice or when to avoid it. No alternatives are named, and the broader use case for the non-hostname parameters is left entirely unexplained.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'HEAD a public URL and return status only' – it does not disclose side effects, limitations, what happens with the other eight parameters, or the format of the returned status. This is insufficient for a tool that clearly accepts many kinds of inputs.

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 – a single sentence with no fluff. However, this brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential context about the tool's broader parameter usage. It is appropriately front-loaded but under-specifies the tool's behavior.

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

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

With nine optional parameters, no output schema, and a one-sentence description, the tool is significantly under-documented. An agent cannot understand what the tool does with most parameters, what constitutes a valid call, or what the response structure looks like. The description only covers a fraction of the tool's apparent capabilities.

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 describes all parameters, but the description adds no value beyond that. Worse, the description's claim of 'HEAD a public URL' directly conflicts with the presence of parameters like 'city', 'zone', and 'json', which suggest the tool does more than URL checking. The description misrepresents the tool's actual parameter semantics.

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 a clear outcome (return status only), which distinguishes it from some siblings. However, the input schema includes nine unrelated parameters (city, zone, json, path, etc.) with no mention in the description, creating confusion about the tool's actual scope. The purpose is clear only for a narrow URL-check use case, not for the broader parameter set.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (normalize-url, browser-url-ok, web-fetch, etc.). It does not mention alternatives or conditions for selection. The absence of any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information leaves the agent to guess based solely on the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the path is discarded, but does not explain what happens to the URL, whether it returns a boolean, modified URL, or error, or what other parameters do. This is a significant gap 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 extremely brief (two short sentences), which is concise, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. It doesn't front-load critical information about the URL parameter or the tool's behavior. The brevity is a deficiency, not 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to use the other parameters, or any error conditions. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't clarify why parameters like city, feed, or json are relevant to parsing a Figma URL, leaving the parameter list confusing.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' It is specific about the resource type. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or normalize-url, and it leaves ambiguity about what 'parse' entails (validation, extraction, or normalization). The core purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.

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. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over its many siblings. An agent must infer usage from the name 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 description must carry the full burden. It discloses 'No disk access,' which is a useful safety trait, but it says nothing about the other checks, what 'safe' means, whether any operations are mutating, or what happens with the non-path parameters. The behavior for 8 of 9 parameters is entirely undisclosed.

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, which is efficient, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A single sentence covering only one aspect of a 9-parameter tool is not appropriately structured; it omits essential information and does not front-load the full scope 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It provides no overview of what the tool does beyond path checking, no explanation of the other parameters, no usage examples, and no guidance on output format or edge cases. An agent cannot correctly use this tool based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but the tool description only mentions path. It does not explain how the other parameters relate to the tool's purpose or when to use each one. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for the majority of parameters, leaving agents confused about the actual use cases.

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 path looks safe'), but the input schema exposes 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query), implying a much broader shape-checking purpose. The description does not reflect the actual scope of the tool and fails to distinguish it from siblings like browser-url-ok or domain-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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor when not to use it. The description only mentions path safety, but the schema suggests a generic shape-checker; there is no mention of alternatives or conditions for selecting this tool over, e.g., browser-url-ok or validate-json.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the core function (lat/lon lookup) but fails to mention that most parameters are discarded, that the tool performs a network call to Open-Meteo, or that it has any side effects or error conditions. The description also does not explain the odd schema where many parameters appear irrelevant to geo-lookup.

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 fluff. It is front-loaded with the core function. However, given the complexity of the schema (9 parameters), the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. Still, it earns a 4 for having no wasted words.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a one-line purpose. It does not explain which parameter to use, what the return format is, how errors are handled, or why the other parameters exist. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on this description alone, making it seriously incomplete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. However, the schema descriptions themselves are confusing (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check' for 'ref'), and the description does not clarify which parameter is the primary input (likely 'city'). Thus, the description adds no value over 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 clear verb and resource: obtaining latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo. However, it does not specify which of the 9 parameters corresponds to the 'place', nor does it distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'weather-hint' that might also take a city. The purpose is technically present but vague given the large, seemingly unrelated parameter set.

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended contexts. Given many sibling tools like 'weather-hint', 'iana-zones', or 'normalize-url', the lack of usage direction leaves the agent guessing about which tool to invoke 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?

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that only the 'url' parameter is used and the other eight are discarded, nor does it explain the return format, error handling, or what happens for non-GitHub URLs. This is a significant gap for a tool that appears to ignore most of its 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 with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, all optional, but the description only explains one. There is no output schema, so the agent cannot infer what the tool returns. The description is far too thin for a tool with such a complex and seemingly mismatched schema, leaving the agent to guess about the other parameters and expected 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the 'url' parameter by implying it should be a GitHub URL, but it does not clarify the purpose of the other eight parameters (city, feed, host, etc.), which are clearly irrelevant to the stated task. This partial clarification keeps it at baseline.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'), making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling URL-handling tools like 'normalize-url' or 'browser-url-ok', which also deal with URLs, so it loses a point for lack of explicit distinction.

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 such as 'normalize-url' or other shape tools. The description simply states what it does without any context on selection criteria, prerequisites, or situations where it should not be used.

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 'Titles discarded' and 'Count current' implying a network fetch, but does not explain side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or how the 9 parameters are processed or discarded. The behavior remains opaque, especially given the mismatch between the description and 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 only two sentences and front-loads the main action, which is concise in form. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful; conciseness should not sacrifice essential information. The description is too sparse to guide correct usage.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (a count? a boolean?), how it interacts with Hacker News, why the parameters exist, or what 'Titles discarded' means in practice. An agent cannot reliably call this tool without extensive external knowledge.

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 its own description, but the tool description adds nothing about how these parameters relate to the stated purpose. The parameters seem to be shape-check inputs (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') that have no apparent connection to counting HN stories. The description fails to bridge this semantic gap, making the parameter usage confusing.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' However, the input schema presents 9 unrelated optional parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) that have nothing to do with counting HN stories, creating a contradiction between the stated purpose and the actual tool behavior. The purpose is clear in wording but misleading in practice.

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. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools. There is no context for when an agent should select this over the many sibling shape-checking tools, leaving the selection entirely to chance.

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 provides none—no mention of side effects, read-only nature, rate limits, or output behavior. The tool's behavior is entirely 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 short (a single phrase) but under-specifies the tool's function. It is not appropriately sized for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations—essential details are missing, making it more under-specification than 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, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to invoke it correctly, or what the parameters represent in context. The agent cannot determine the tool's purpose or usage from this text.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself documents all nine parameters, so no additional info is required.

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 resource ('Common IANA timezone names') but lacks a clear verb or operation. It is ambiguous whether this tool lists, validates, or returns these names. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', and the purpose remains vague.

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 are no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess 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 must disclose behavior itself. It says it fetches and returns group counts, but it does not explain that many parameters are discarded, what happens on fetch failure, or whether it actually validates robots.txt syntax. The schema shows that most parameters are 'discarded after the shape check,' but the description omits this entirely, 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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple fetch-and-count 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?

Despite having 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not indicate which parameter to use, what the output format looks like, or any error handling. An agent cannot reliably call this tool without additional knowledge.

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

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

The schema has 100% coverage, but the descriptions are unrelated to robots.txt (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint', 'Git ref name'). The tool description does not clarify which parameter is the robots.txt URL; it merely repeats the action. It fails to resolve the ambiguity introduced by the schema, so it adds no value beyond the structured fields.

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

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

The description is specific: 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.' It clearly names the resource (public robots.txt) and the output (group counts). It distinguishes this tool from siblings that deal with URLs, statuses, or other shapes.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer it over web-fetch or fetch-status, nor any exclusions or conditions. The description only states what it does, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Key discarded,' which is ambiguous and does not explain side effects, permissions, return values, or what happens to the other 8 parameters. The behavior is essentially 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 short, which might seem concise, but it omits essential information and is not front-loaded with the most useful context. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain how to call the tool, what each parameter does, or what the result looks like. An agent cannot use it 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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaning to the parameters and even creates confusion by implying a Jira key while the schema has no such field. The baseline of 3 is reduced because the description actively misleads rather than supplementing 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 a Jira issue key shape'), but the input schema contains 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query, etc.) with no 'key' field. This mismatch makes the purpose misleading and unclear about what the tool actually operates on.

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 (e.g., domain-shape, figma-url-shape, validate-json). The description does not mention any conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess the intended 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the HTTP response body is discarded, which is useful. However, it does not explain that most parameters are discarded (as hinted by parameter descriptions) or what the tool actually does with the non-URL fields. There is no mention of side effects, permissions, or return format beyond 'HTTP status'. The disclosure is minimal and incomplete.

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

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

The description is very concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately adds a behavioral detail. This is efficient, though it sacrifices completeness.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too brief. It does not explain why the schema includes fields like city, zone, or json, nor how they relate to the stated 'public library docs URL' purpose. An agent cannot reliably infer the tool's full behavior or correct invocation from 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning to parameters; it only mentions 'URL' without referencing any specific parameter. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already explains the parameters, and the description does not contradict or augment them.

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 ('HTTP status for a public library docs URL') and a behavioral note ('Body discarded'). However, it is misaligned with the input schema, which accepts 9 heterogeneous parameters (city, zone, json, etc.) that are not all URLs. This inconsistency makes the tool's true scope unclear and fails to differentiate it from sibling status-check tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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 conditions, exclusions, or preferred use cases. Given the crowded sibling list of URL and status tools, this is a significant gap.

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 does not disclose side effects, permissions, output format, or the fate of inputs beyond the schema's 'discarded' notes, which are not in the description. The one-liner adds no behavioral context beyond what the schema already states.

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 not appropriately sized; it under-specifies the tool for a 9-parameter interface. It is not a tautology, but it omits essential invocation details, making it too terse to be useful.

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, no annotations, and 9 parameters, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the return value, how to provide the JSON, or any constraints. The agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description does not connect any of the 9 parameters to the operation. It leaves unclear which parameter holds the JSON object (likely 'json' but not stated). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to help the agent pick the correct input.

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

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

The description states a clear operation (count keys in a JSON object) but fails to specify how to invoke it or which parameter carries the JSON. It does not differentiate from sibling counting tools like toml-table-count or hn-front-count, leaving ambiguity about the input source.

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 which parameter to pass, no conditions for selection, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the invocation context from a single generic sentence.

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 behavioral disclosure. It does state that query and fragment are dropped, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., a structured object vs. plain text), error handling for invalid URLs, or any other side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no output 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and the key behavioral detail (dropping query/fragment). There is no wasted wording.

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 insufficient for the tool's complexity. With 9 parameters, many of which appear unrelated to URL normalization, the agent has no guidance on how to handle them or whether they are even relevant. The lack of an output schema and any description of the return structure further reduces completeness. The presence of irrelevant parameters is a major gap that the description fails to address.

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

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

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific context beyond the schema, and notably the schema includes many parameters (city, json, path, zone, etc.) that seem unrelated to URL normalization, which the description does not clarify.

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: returning origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly notes that query and fragment are dropped. This distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools like domain-shape and figma-url-shape, which focus on validation rather than extraction.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any sibling tools or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and function 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 only states 'No browser is launched,' but omits what the tool actually does with the parameters, whether it makes network calls, what it returns, or what side effects occur. The schema hints at discarding and length checks, but the description fails to explain these behaviors.

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 structural breakdown. While it is short, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness—every sentence should earn its place, but this one lacks the necessary detail to be useful.

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, no annotations, and a one-line description, the tool is severely under-documented. The agent cannot determine what results to expect, how inputs are validated, or what 'can be opened' actually checks. This is far from complete for a tool with such a broad parameter set.

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, so the schema already provides clear meanings for each input. However, the description adds no information about how these parameters relate to the tool's core purpose, leaving the overall parameter semantics disconnected from the stated function. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema does the heavy lifting, but the description offers no added value.

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

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

The description states 'Check whether a URL can be opened' which gives a verb and resource, but it's vague about what 'can be opened' means and how the many unrelated parameters (city, json, path, etc.) fit into that purpose. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or normalize-url, making it unclear what specific check this performs.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no context to decide between playwright-url-ok and other URL-related tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the query is discarded, which is a useful note about side effects. However, it does not mention that the other parameters are ignored, nor does it disclose the return format (e.g., whether it returns an integer). Given the tool's simplicity, this is minimally acceptable but not thorough.

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

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

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no padding or redundancy. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 counting tool, the description is mostly complete. However, the presence of nine parameters, of which only one is relevant, could confuse an agent. The description does not explicitly state that only 'query' is used, though the schema descriptions hint at this. Additionally, the lack of an output schema means the return value is implied but not stated. Given the low complexity, this is adequate but leaves minor gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond reinforcing that 'query' is the relevant parameter. It does not clarify that the other eight parameters are unused, though their schema descriptions already note they are discarded. Thus, the description adds little value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific action (count characters) on a specific resource (search query). It is clear and not a tautology. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling counting tools like memory-key-count or hn-front-count, so it misses the top score.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling counting tools. The description does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or conditions under which this tool is preferred. The agent is left to infer based on 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 says nothing about side effects, read-only nature, what inputs are used for, or how results are presented. The parameter descriptions hint at some 'shape checks' and discarding, but the tool description itself is silent on 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 a single short sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded with the core topic. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, which prevents a higher score.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to call it, what inputs are expected to mean, or any behavioral context. An agent cannot use this tool correctly based on the provided information.

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 is individually documented in the schema. The tool description adds no meaning to parameters and does not explain their relevance to the catalog. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics, though the description fails to tie them 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 is a noun phrase stating the resource ('catalog of common HTTP status codes') but lacks a verb or action. It does not clarify how the tool operates or what it returns, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which also deal with HTTP status. The purpose is vague and under-specified.

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, exclusions, or related tools. An agent has no way to decide if this is the right 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Prompt discarded', implying inputs are ignored, but doesn't explain what happens with the nine parameters or whether there are side effects. The schema hints at shape checks, but the description omits this entirely.

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 this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to convey essential information, so it doesn't earn points for being brief.

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 must explain the tool's purpose and behavior, but it's a single vague sentence. It's completely inadequate for an agent to determine when 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no semantic value and even introduces a 'prompt' concept absent from the schema, which could mislead agents about expected input.

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

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

The description states a verb ('Return') and a resource ('three-step thinking template'), but the template's content and purpose are undefined. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like calc-eval or citation, and 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous without a prompt parameter in the schema.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving an agent without any basis for selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that only the 'zone' parameter is used, nor does it disclose that other parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) are discarded or ignored. This is a significant omission given the schema lists 9 parameters, many seemingly unrelated to timezone lookups. The description provides no insight into parameter handling or potential 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 a single sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it may be too terse—it sacrifices critical context about parameter usage, making it less helpful than a slightly longer description that clarifies which parameters matter.

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, many unrelated to timezone, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to indicate that only 'zone' is relevant, leaving the agent to guess about the purpose of other parameters. For a simple tool this could be acceptable, but the schema's noise creates a completeness gap that the description should address.

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

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

The schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is confusing because it includes many parameters unrelated to timezones. The description's mention of 'named IANA timezone' implies 'zone' is the key parameter, but it doesn't clarify the role of the others. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a 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 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' uses a specific verb (current time) and resource (named IANA timezone), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like utc-time and iana-zones. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage (call with a timezone name) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like utc-time or iana-zones. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and description.

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 provides no information about side effects, safety, permissions, or what 'discarded' means operationally. There is no hint of whether this is a read-only operation, whether it accesses external resources, or what happens to the input. The phrase 'body discarded' is unexplained and does not clarify 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 extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single vague phrase with no structure does not earn points for efficiency; it fails to convey necessary information. There is no front-loading of key facts because there are none.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a vague description, the tool is completely inadequate for an agent to call correctly. The agent cannot determine what inputs to provide (despite parameter names, their descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's purpose), what the tool returns, or what side effects occur. This is a severe 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?

Although schema coverage is 100% (every parameter has a description), those descriptions are unrelated to the tool's apparent purpose. For example, 'ref' is 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check', and 'url' is 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' – none of these align with TOML table counting. The parameter descriptions do not add meaningful context for how to use the tool; they appear generic and potentially misleading. The description does not compensate for the schema's irrelevance.

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 'TOML table count, body discarded' gives a minimal hint that the tool counts something in TOML and discards a body, but it does not state the action clearly (e.g., 'Counts the number of tables in a TOML document'), nor does it specify the input format or output. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools, as many tools like 'hn-front-count' or 'memory-key-count' involve counting. The purpose remains ambiguous and non-actionable.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of conditions, use cases, or exclusions. The description does not even suggest what kind of input it expects, making it impossible for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that all parameters are discarded, whether any network calls are made, or if there are side effects. The presence of 9 seemingly irrelevant parameters is completely unexplained, making behavior 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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, yet lacks necessary context for a tool with 9 parameters, so it is not well-structured for completeness.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a one-sentence description, it is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine why these parameters exist or how they relate to the tool's function, making the description inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a detailed description in the schema (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no parameter information, but since the schema is comprehensive, the 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 'Current UTC timestamp.' clearly states the tool's output: the current UTC time. It is a specific resource and implies a read-only retrieval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'timezone', which might also relate to time, though the purpose is still understandable.

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 like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that 'the body is discarded,' hinting at no side effects, but it does not explain what happens on valid vs invalid JSON, what the return value is, or whether any other parameters are actually used. The schema's per-parameter 'discarded after' notes add some context, but these come from the schema, not the description, and are not synthesized.

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 front-loads the main function. It is concise but under-specified. It omits essential context about parameter usage, return format, and alternatives, making it more of an under-specified statement than a genuinely efficient description.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to clarify why the extra parameters exist, what the tool returns, or how to invoke it correctly. An agent cannot confidently call this tool based solely on the description, as the mismatch between the JSON-focused text and the broad parameter list is unresolved.

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

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

The schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is documented. The description itself adds little meaning beyond the schema; it only refers to 'a body' without clarifying that the 'json' parameter is the primary input. The tool description does not help the agent understand why the other eight parameters exist or how they relate to JSON validation, leaving the parameter list confusing.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' It is distinct from sibling validators like domain-shape or jira-key-shape, which target other formats. However, the schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (e.g., ref, city, feed) that are not mentioned in the description, muddling the tool's actual scope and creating ambiguity about what exactly is validated.

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 other validation tools, nor does it state any conditions or exclusions (e.g., 'use for JSON only, not for URLs'). The presence of many sibling tools makes this gap significant.

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions the external service Open-Meteo, but does not disclose that only the 'city' parameter is used, that other parameters are ignored, or any rate limits or error conditions. The mismatch between the weather-only description and the multi-parameter schema is unexplained.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the core function. There is no waste, but it may be too sparse to convey necessary constraints or scope.

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

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

Incomplete given the 9 optional parameters and no output schema. The description only addresses the 'city' parameter, leaving the other 8 unexplained in the context of the tool. It does not describe the return format, behavior with multiple parameters, or how the external call is made.

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. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema; for example, the schema already describes 'city' as 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call'. The description does not clarify how the other 8 parameters relate to the stated 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?

States a clear verb and resource: returns current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. This distinguishes it from siblings like geo-hint and timezone, but the 9-parameter schema implies a broader scope that the description does not address.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools, exclusions, or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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

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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: 'Body discarded', which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not mention error handling, redirects, timeouts, authentication requirements, or what happens when non-URL parameters are passed. Given the tool has 9 parameters with widely varying behaviors, this 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 extremely concise – a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and output. However, given the complexity of 9 parameters, this brevity sacrifices necessary detail, so it is not perfect.

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, 0 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It only addresses the 'url' use case and ignores the other parameters, which appear to serve entirely different purposes (weather hints, JSON validation, timezone checks, etc.). An agent cannot infer how the tool behaves when multiple parameters are present or how to interpret results for non-URL inputs.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% – each parameter has a description in the schema (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline of 3 for a well-covered 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 output (HTTP status and content type) and a specific resource (public URL), which is clear for the 'url' parameter. However, the input schema includes 8 other parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) that are not mentioned in the description, making the tool's overall purpose ambiguous. It reads as if the tool only handles URLs, but it appears to be a multi-purpose dispatcher.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of when to prefer web-fetch over fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the schema alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The only behavioral note ('Title discarded after the call') is confusing because there is no title parameter. No disclosure of network access, side effects, error handling, or data retention beyond the odd title mention.

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-loads a purpose, but the second sentence is disconnected from the schema and does not earn its place. It is concise but at the expense of 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?

With 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It fails to explain how any parameter maps to the stated purpose and gives no information about return values or invocation expectations.

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

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

Although schema descriptions cover all 9 parameters (100% coverage), the description adds no clarification and actually introduces a 'title' concept that does not exist in the schema, misleading the agent about how parameters 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?

States a specific action (check existence of a Wikipedia title), but the input schema has no 'title' parameter; the parameters are unrelated (url, city, feed, host, etc.). This mismatch makes the purpose ambiguous and likely incorrect, and there is no differentiation from sibling tools.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tools are mentioned, and no conditions or exclusions are given.

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