Africa/Dakar clock

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, network/cost implications, or error behavior. Although some parameter descriptions say values are 'discarded', the tool's overall behavior and consequences are not transparent.

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

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

The main description is brief and the parameter descriptions are short. There is no obvious redundancy or excessive length, though the repeated 'discarded' phrasing is somewhat unclear.

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 no return-format description, the tool description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently. It lacks instructions on how to map task examples to parameters and what 'connection methods' will look like.

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

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

Every parameter has a literal description, but most descriptions focus on being 'discarded' or 'checked' and do not explain how the value contributes to finding a gateway. For example, 'file path to check; no disk access' does not clarify why that parameter exists or how it should be used.

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

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

The description identifies a find operation with a target resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway') and lists example tasks, but the relationship between those tasks and the nine optional input fields is unclear. The phrase 'Task text discarded' is ambiguous and does not clarify how the tool should be invoked.

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, what conditions favor it over sibling tools, or what prerequisites apply. All nine parameters are optional, but no selection strategy or recommended use case is mentioned.

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 present, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects and behavior, but it only says 'No browser is launched.' It does not state whether the tool makes a network request, what it returns, whether it has side effects, or what error conditions may arise.

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: one sentence and no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose or to an important limitation.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only gives a one-line purpose. It does not explain parameter usage, return value, error behavior, or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context to call it confidently.

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

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

The description does not mention any parameters, and the input schema is largely unrelated to the stated purpose—fields like city, json, path, and zone appear alongside url with generic 'discarded after the shape check' notes. There is no guidance on which of the nine optional parameters should be supplied or how they relate to checking a URL.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool checks whether a URL can be opened and explicitly notes that no browser is launched, giving a concrete action and resource. It is slightly vague about what 'can be opened' means—valid URL, reachable endpoint, or something else—but the primary purpose is 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?

The description provides almost no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch-status, normalize-url, or playwright-url-ok. The phrase 'No browser is launched' hints that it is not for browser-rendering checks, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or explain when this tool should be preferred.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only offers the confusing claim that the expression is discarded, while failing to explain what happens to the nine provided parameters, what the tool returns, or whether it performs any real work. This is not transparent enough to support safe invocation.

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

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

The text is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The second sentence 'Expression discarded' raises more questions than it answers and does not earn its place in a helpful tool definition.

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

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

Given nine heterogeneous parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling list, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the tool's real inputs, outputs, side effects, or relationship to sibling tools, making correct selection and invocation effectively impossible.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, giving each parameter a description, but the tool description adds no value for parameter selection. Worse, it implies an arithmetic expression parameter that does not exist, so an agent cannot map 'a+b style arithmetic' onto any of the actual schema properties.

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 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic' but then immediately says 'Expression discarded,' which contradicts the stated purpose. More importantly, the input schema contains nine unrelated string parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) and no expression parameter at all, so an agent cannot tell what this tool actually does.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools. The description neither names alternatives nor provides a selection condition, and the misleading arithmetic/discard language actively sends an agent in the wrong direction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, but it only discloses non-storage of page content. It does not state whether the URL is fetched over the network, whether redirects are followed, or what happens on errors or timeouts.

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

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

The description is a single focused sentence that states the output and a key limitation. There is no unnecessary detail or verbosity.

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

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

The description lacks output format and error semantics, and it does not reconcile the focused URL operation with the broad, heterogeneous input schema. An agent cannot confidently infer full tool behavior from the provided 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?

Although every parameter has a schema description, the tool description leaves the relationship between the focused URL behavior and the eight other optional parameters unexplained. It is unclear whether ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, and query are accepted, ignored, or affect the result.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, and it explicitly says page content is not stored. This makes the core action clear and distinguishes it from content-fetching tools, though it does not explain the 'citation' name.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The statement that page content is not stored is more of a privacy note than a concrete usage rule.

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

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

No annotations are present. The description only mentions that identifiers are not retained, which is a privacy note, but does not explain side effects, deterministic behavior, or whether the tool modifies any state. The behavior remains 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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks substance. It does not front-load the core purpose or provide any useful detail about the tool's functionality, making the brevity counterproductive.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what the tool does, what the output looks like, or how the parameters relate to the classification process. This is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters and each parameter has a meaningful description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). However, without a clear tool purpose, these descriptions do not convey how the parameters are used together or why they are relevant to classification. The baseline for full coverage is 3.

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

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

The description 'Show how this request is classified' gives a vague sense of classification but does not specify what kind of classification, what inputs are used, or what output is produced. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'validate-json' or 'normalize-url'.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of specific scenarios or conditions that would make this tool the appropriate choice among the sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states a pure function without side effects, return format, or error behavior. Parameter descriptions mention 'discarded after the shape check' which implies validation logic, but the tool description does not elaborate, leaving 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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is structurally fine. However, it is too terse to convey necessary information, balancing brevity with a lack of substantive content.

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

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

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to provide essential context about the tool's operation, parameter roles, or expected results. An agent would have no way to correctly invoke this tool based solely 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 descriptions cover all 9 parameters, but many (e.g., 'ref', 'city', 'query') are unrelated to hostname splitting, suggesting the tool may be misnamed or repurposed. The tool description adds no clarification on how parameters relate to the stated action, so the semantics remain confusing.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('Split a hostname into labels') but the parameter list includes many unrelated fields (e.g., 'ref', 'city', 'query'), making the actual purpose ambiguous. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' gives a slight hint but does not clarify why so many parameters exist.

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 merely notes what it does not do ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), but there is no explicit instruction on selection criteria or context of use.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the HTTP method (HEAD) and the narrow result ('status only'), implying a safe, non-destructive check, but it does not mention redirects, error behavior, or any network 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, focused sentence that conveys the operation and output with no filler or redundant detail.

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

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

There is no output schema and no explanation of which parameters are actually relevant to the HEAD request. The mismatch between the concise description and the broad, unrelated parameter list leaves the agent without enough context to confidently invoke the 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?

The schema contains 9 optional parameters, but most have descriptions unrelated to the tool's purpose (e.g., 'city', 'feed', 'zone', 'query'). Even the 'url' description says 'to normalize or cite' rather than 'to check status', making the parameter semantics actively misleading rather than helpful.

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 ('HEAD'), a resource ('a public URL'), and the exact output ('status only'). This unambiguously distinguishes the tool's core function from content-fetching 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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over siblings such as browser-url-ok, web-fetch, or inspect-robots. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used or when it should be avoided.

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

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

The description discloses that the path is discarded, giving some insight into behavior. However, it does not specify the output format or any side effects, and there are no annotations to supplement this.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly conveys the core action and a key detail (path discarded). It is appropriately sized and immediately understandable.

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

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

The description does not explain what the tool returns or how the parsed output is structured, which is important since there is no output schema. It also provides no broader context about Figma URL parsing, leaving the agent with incomplete 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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it rests at the baseline score.

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 parses a Figma file URL and specifically notes that the path is discarded. This directly distinguishes it from other URL-related tools like normalize-url 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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit comparison or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and minimal 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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The only behavioral note is 'No disk access,' but it does not mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or return format. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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

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

The description is very concise at one sentence, and it front-loads the core action. There is no wasted text. However, the brevity comes at the cost of crucial details, so it earns a high score for conciseness but not a perfect one.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of the extra parameters, the meaning of 'safe,' or any expected result, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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

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

The schema has 100% coverage on parameters, but the descriptions are generic and largely unrelated to the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'ref', 'url', 'city', and 'feed' have descriptions that seem mismatched with 'path safety,' and the description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they interact.

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

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

The description states the verb 'check' and the resource 'path safety', giving a basic purpose. However, it does not specify what 'safe' means or the expected output, and it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'browser-url-ok' or 'fetch-status' that also perform safety checks.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many related tools, but the description gives no conditions, examples, or contrasts, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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 explaining side effects, network usage, or read-only behavior. It only says 'via Open-Meteo', which hints at an external call, but does not disclose how inputs are handled, what is discarded, or what happens on failure.

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 free of unnecessary words, but it reads as an incomplete noun phrase rather than a complete instruction. It is concise but lacks a clear verb.

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

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

The description is severely incomplete for a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema. It does not explain which parameters are relevant, what output format is returned, whether a place name or URL is expected, or how failures are reported.

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

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

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions are largely irrelevant or confusing for a geo-hint tool: most mention discarded values, shape checks, or unrelated actions. The description does not clarify which parameter represents the place or how the latitude/longitude result is derived.

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 conveys that the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, but it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a clear verb-led instruction. It does not specify which input parameter identifies the place, and among many sibling tools it is only weakly differentiated.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like weather-hint or timezone-related tools. There is no mention of appropriate input selection, fallback behavior, or limitations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states only the core parse action and does not disclose that all parameters except 'url' are ignored/discarded, nor does it describe error behavior or return format.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the essential purpose immediately.

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 and no output schema, the description leaves critical ambiguity: which parameter to use, what the return shape is, and how invalid URLs are handled. This is not enough for reliable invocation without further inference.

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

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

Although every parameter has a schema description, those descriptions are generic and misleading (e.g., 'url' is described as 'normalize or cite' rather than 'GitHub URL to parse'). The tool description does not clarify which parameter is the GitHub URL, and the other eight parameters appear irrelevant and discarded.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Parse'), identifies the exact resource ('GitHub URL'), and states the output ('owner and repo'). This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling URL/shape 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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool over alternatives such as normalize-url, figma-url-shape, or jira-key-shape. The description implies use for GitHub URLs but does not state exclusivity 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, but it only states that it counts current HN stories. It does not disclose network behavior, caching, failure modes, output format, or whether it is read-only.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence 'Titles discarded' is cryptic and adds little value. It is concise but not optimally structured for 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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or any practical usage context. The presence of many irrelevant parameters further detracts from completeness.

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

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

The schema lists nine optional parameters, but their descriptions are generic and unrelated to Hacker News front-page counting, e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'. None of the parameters appear meaningful for this tool's 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: count current Hacker News front-page stories. The phrase 'Titles discarded' is somewhat ambiguous, but the core purpose is clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like web-fetch or status-catalog.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations and a minimal description, the tool's behavior is entirely opaque. It does not disclose whether it is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. The description mentions 'discarded after the call' for some parameters, implying side effects or transformations, but this is unexplained and inconsistent.

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 succinct, consisting of a single sentence, which is appropriately brief for a simple tool. However, it is so terse that it lacks necessary detail. The structure is straightforward, but the brevity compromises usefulness.

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

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

Given the tool's apparent simplicity, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's return value, the purpose of the unrelated parameters, or how it fits among sibling timezone tools. The mismatched parameter descriptions raise more questions than they answer, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool correctly.

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

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

The schema includes nine optional parameters, but their descriptions are largely irrelevant to a timezone-name tool. For example, 'ref' is described as 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' and 'city' as 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call'. Only 'zone' aligns with the tool's purpose, but even that is ambiguous. The descriptions confuse rather than clarify, providing no meaningful semantics for the agent.

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

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

The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' suggests it provides a list of timezone names, but it does not explicitly state that it returns a list or how it relates to the input schema. It also fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'timezone' and 'tz-africa-dakar', leaving the agent guessing about its exact function.

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

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

No usage instructions are provided. The description does not indicate when this tool should be invoked over alternatives, nor does it explain how to use the parameters. The agent is left without any guidance on selecting or calling this tool.

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

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

The description implies a read-only network fetch and explicitly narrows the result to group counts, but it does not mention error behavior, redirects, or the lack of side effects. With no annotations, more detail would improve transparency.

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

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

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler. It is slightly too terse given the need to disambiguate among nine unrelated parameters, but it remains well structured.

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

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

With no output schema and no guidance on which of the nine optional parameters to use, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. It also leaves ambiguous what 'group counts' counts and what happens when robots.txt is missing.

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?

Parameter descriptions are present but largely irrelevant to the stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint', 'IANA timezone name'). None clearly maps to the robots.txt URL or host, so an agent cannot reliably select inputs.

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

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

The description clearly states the core action—fetch a public robots.txt—and the output, returning only group counts. However, it does not identify which input parameter selects the target robots.txt, slightly reducing clarity.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web-fetch or normalize-url, and no intended scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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 transparency burden, but it only says 'Key discarded' and does not disclose return values, side effects, or whether the tool performs any validation beyond shape. The parameter descriptions inconsistently mention discarding/no disk access, which adds confusion rather than clarity.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the main action, but it is too minimal to be useful. It omits essential details such as accepted key format and return behavior, so the brevity does not compensate for the lack of substantive content.

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

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

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description leaves critical context undefined: what constitutes a valid Jira key shape, what the tool returns, and how the key is supplied. The unrelated input schema deepens the incompleteness.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, each parameter description appears copied from unrelated tools (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'IANA timezone name'). None of them explain how to provide a Jira issue key, so they actively mislead instead of clarifying the parameters.

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

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

The description states a specific check ('Jira issue key shape'), but the input schema exposes no 'key' parameter, instead listing unrelated fields like url, city, json, and query. This mismatch makes the stated purpose misleading and hard to map to the actual interface.

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

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

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus sibling shape/check tools such as github-repo-shape, figma-url-shape, or wiki-title-ok. There are no usage conditions, examples, or alternative recommendations.

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 only behavior disclosed is 'Body discarded,' which implies the response excludes the body. However, it does not mention network side effects, error handling, rate limits, or the fact that many schema parameters are described as discarded or unrelated to the stated purpose.

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 short sentences, with no filler or redundant content. It is concise and easy to read, though the brevity sacrifices essential detail.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not state the return format (e.g., status code only vs. headers), which parameter is primary, or how to handle the confusing array of seemingly unrelated 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?

The tool description adds no meaning about the parameters themselves. The schema descriptions are present but contradictory to the stated purpose (e.g., city for weather hints, zone for timezone, query for search length), and the description does not explain which parameter is the actual URL input or why the others are accepted.

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

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

The description names a verb and resource ('HTTP status for a public library docs URL') but 'public library docs URL' is ambiguous and it does not specify which of the 9 input parameters is actually used. It also fails to distinguish itself from sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, prerequisites, or contrasting examples are provided, leaving the agent to guess its intended role among many similar sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that values are discarded and several parameters mention being discarded after checks, but it does not explain side effects, failures, or whether anything is read, fetched, or stored.

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

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

The description is brief and front-loaded, but it is so terse that it omits essential usage context. The sentence 'Values discarded' adds a small behavioral detail, but the overall structure does not compensate for the ambiguous parameter set.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not say which parameter contains the JSON object, whether top-level or nested keys are counted, or what output format the count will take.

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

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

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions are mismatched with the tool purpose: url, city, feed, host, zone, and query appear to belong to other tools, and json is described as 'JSON text to validate' rather than the object whose keys are counted. The tool description adds no mapping between 'JSON object' and a specific parameter.

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 keys in a JSON object') and somewhat distinguishes from validation tools, but it does not map that purpose onto any of the 9 optional parameters; the only JSON-related parameter is described as 'validate' rather than 'count', so the actual target is ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is given for when to use this tool instead of siblings like validate-json, search-query-len, or file-path-ok. There is no mention of input constraints, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions that query and fragment are dropped. It does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or that many schema parameters are effectively discarded after checks.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded, but it is too terse given the complex parameter list. It does not expand on the output format or the purpose of non-URL parameters.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return structure, the role of unrelated parameters, or potential errors, making it hard for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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

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

While each parameter has a description, most descriptions are irrelevant to URL normalization (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name', 'JSON text'), likely copied from other tool schemas. They do not clarify how these parameters relate to the tool's core function.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment. This specifies the main action and output, but the presence of many unrelated schema parameters makes the overall purpose somewhat ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical scenarios, constraints, or how it compares with sibling 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?

The description discloses one important behavior (no browser launch), but it does not clarify what constitutes 'can be opened' (e.g., HTTP status, DNS resolution), what happens on failure, timeouts, or if any side effects (e.g., network requests, cookies) occur. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 and to the point, using only two sentences. It wastes no words and is well structured for quick reading.

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 lacks critical context: it does not explain the purpose of the nine parameters, the expected output, error handling, or how it differs from similar tools. Given the abstract schema and many optional parameters, the description is far from complete.

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

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

The schema parameters have descriptions, but they are unrelated to URL checking (e.g., 'city' for weather, 'ref' for git) and appear to be placeholders. The tool description does not clarify their meaning or relevance to the URL check, making the parameters confusing and effectively unexplained.

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

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

The description clearly states the primary action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and even clarifies a key behavioral aspect ('No browser is launched'). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, which might serve similar purposes.

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 specific scenarios, limitations, or conditions that would make this tool preferable to others.

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

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

The description does disclose that the query is discarded, which is a useful side-effect note. But it does not explain what happens to the many other accepted parameters, whether any external effects occur, or whether only the 'query' field is used. With no annotations, this leaves important behavior 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 very short and to the point, with no wasted words. The two sentences each carry meaning: the first states the action, the second states a behavioral guarantee. It could be more informative, but it is well-structured for its length.

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 surprisingly complex schema with nine unrelated optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format (e.g., an integer count), does not clarify that only 'query' is relevant, and does not explain why other parameters exist. This makes the tool hard to use correctly despite its simple stated purpose.

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

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

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, most parameter descriptions are irrelevant or confusing for a search-query length tool (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'). The 'query' parameter is described as 'Search text; discarded after the length check', which helps, but the other parameters are not marked as ignored, making the actual input contract unclear.

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 statement 'Count characters in a search query' gives a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the core function. However, the input schema includes many unrelated properties (ref, url, city, etc.), and the description does not explicitly identify the 'query' parameter as the sole relevant input, so the purpose is slightly muddied.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of suitable input types, and no exclusions. The sentence 'Query discarded' is about side effects, not usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of explaining side effects. It only says 'short catalog' and some parameters mention being 'discarded' or having 'no disk access,' but it never explicitly states whether the tool is read-only, persistent, or what it does with input.

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 and front-loaded with the main noun phrase. However, it is only a single fragment and lacks any structural breakdown of behavior, inputs, or outputs.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what the catalog contains, what the parameters mean in context, what the return value looks like, or how the tool should be invoked successfully.

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

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

Although every parameter has a description, those descriptions are unrelated to a catalog of HTTP status codes—e.g., 'Git ref name,' 'HTTPS URL,' 'City name,' 'IANA timezone name.' The descriptions add arbitrary details but do not clarify how any parameter affects the tool's purpose, and they are likely misleading.

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

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

The description identifies a resource—a short catalog of common HTTP status codes—but does not state an action, input, or output. It is unclear whether the tool lists codes, validates codes, or returns code details, and it does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools like fetch-status.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about scenarios where a status catalog would be needed, and sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url are not referenced.

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 explaining side effects and safety. It only mentions 'Prompt discarded' and some parameters being discarded, but does not clearly state whether the tool is read-only, side-effect-free, or how input data is handled.

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 avoids fluff, but the structure is abrupt. 'Prompt discarded' reads like an incomplete or dangling clause rather than a clear behavioral note.

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

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

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not describe the structure or content of the returned template. It also fails to explain how the numerous listed parameters affect the result, leaving the tool's overall contract 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?

Although every parameter has a schema description, the descriptions are disconnected from the stated purpose and often contradictory. Terms like 'discarded after the shape check', 'normalize or cite', 'public weather hint', and 'length check' do not explain how any parameter relates to returning a thinking template.

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 main clause 'Return a three-step thinking template' is a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose reasonably clear. However, the appended 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous and slightly muddies the intended behavior.

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 any alternative. The description does not state use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not mention read-only nature, error handling, invalid zone behavior, return format, or side effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 unnecessary words, making it very concise and front-loaded. Slightly more detail would improve utility, but conciseness itself is strong.

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 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to specify which parameter is the primary input, whether parameters are mutually exclusive, what the output format is, or how errors are surfaced.

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

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

Although the schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, the description adds no extra meaning and the schema contains many unrelated optional parameters with 'discarded' notes. The key 'zone' parameter is only described as 'IANA timezone name', with no clarification that it is functionally required or that other parameters are irrelevant.

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 indicates the tool provides the current time for a named IANA timezone, which distinguishes it from related tools like utc-time or tz-africa-dakar. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'Get', slightly reducing clarity.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. The description implies usage for timezone-specific lookups but does not explicitly state conditions or 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 explaining behavior, but it only states the output and never mentions side effects, ignored parameters, or what inputs actually affect the result. The schema hints that many parameters are discarded, but the description itself is silent.

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 filler or redundant wording, making it well structured and easy to scan.

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

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

Given nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description leaves too much context missing. It does not explain parameter roles, return format, or error 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?

Although the schema covers all parameters, the description adds no meaning about how any of the nine optional parameters relate to the Africa/Dakar time lookup. The schema descriptions are generic and appear inconsistent with the tool purpose, and the description does not clarify which parameters are relevant.

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 identifies the resource (Africa/Dakar) and the output (current local time), so an agent can tell what the tool returns. It lacks a direct verb and does not acknowledge the nine unrelated optional parameters, which slightly muddies the purpose.

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

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

The description implies use when the current local time in Africa/Dakar is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as timezone, utc-time, or iana-zones. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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, but it only says 'Current UTC timestamp.' It does not disclose that the nine input parameters are discarded, that the tool always returns the same kind of result regardless of inputs, or what format the timestamp takes. Some of this is visible in parameter descriptions, but the tool description itself is opaque.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine optional parameters and no annotations. Brevity here comes at the cost of needed behavioral context, so it is not appropriately sized.

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 nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is a single fragment. It fails to explain why the parameters exist, that they are discarded, or how this relates to sibling timezone tools. An agent cannot reliably understand the tool's full behavior from this description.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter, including the fact that most are discarded. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns the current UTC timestamp, which is the core function. It does not differentiate from sibling time tools like timezone or iana-zones, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timezone or iana-zones, and no mention that all parameters are effectively ignored. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the body is discarded, which is a useful side-effect note, but it does not mention the return format, potential errors, or any other observable behavior. The many unrelated parameters are also unexplained, further reducing transparency.

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

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

The main description is concise and to the point, using only two sentences. However, the parameter list is cluttered with irrelevant fields, which detracts from overall clarity and focus. The structure itself is not overly verbose, but the semantic noise prevents a perfect 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?

The tool does not specify its output schema or return value, leaving the caller unsure whether the result is a boolean, a status object, or something else. It also fails to explain why so many unrelated parameters exist, making the tool's true interface poorly defined. This is a significant gap for a validation 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are largely mismatched to the tool's purpose. Only 'json' is relevant, while others like 'url', 'city', 'feed' and 'zone' have descriptions copied from unrelated contexts, which actively mislead. This undermines the meaning of the parameters.

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

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

The description 'Check whether a body is valid JSON' clearly states the core action and target, and the tool name reinforces this. However, the term 'body' is ambiguous given multiple parameters, and the description does not explicitly identify which parameter contains the JSON, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as search-query-len or normalize-url. The only behavioral note 'The body is discarded' is not usage direction.

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

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

The description does not disclose that only the 'city' parameter is likely used while others are ignored, nor does it mention that a network call to an external service (Open-Meteo) is made. With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for transparency and falls short.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It is well-structured and immediately communicates the core functionality without unnecessary detail.

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

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

The description is too sparse given the tool's complexity. It does not specify the output format, error behavior, or which parameters are actually required. With nine optional parameters and no output schema, an agent lacks essential context to use the tool confidently.

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

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

While the schema covers 100% of parameters, most descriptions are irrelevant to weather (e.g., 'ref' as a Git ref name, 'url' for normalization). Only 'city' aligns with the tool's purpose. This mismatch misleads the agent about which parameters matter and what the tool actually does.

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 primary function: returning the current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. However, the presence of many unrelated parameters in the schema could confuse an agent about the tool's actual scope, though the core purpose is still evident.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus its many sibling tools, nor does it indicate any prerequisites, limitations, or typical scenarios. An agent is left without any direction on invocation.

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?

It discloses that the body is discarded, and some parameters are explicitly noted as 'discarded after the shape check.' However, it does not mention any network side effects, authentication, or rate limits, leaving ambiguity about the actual behavior given the eclectic parameter list.

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

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

The description is brief and to the point, consisting of two short sentences. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the parameter list is extensive and not summarized.

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 many unrelated parameters and lack of an output schema, the description fails to explain how to interact with the tool or what to expect. It does not clarify which parameters are actually used or how they affect the result, leaving the agent without sufficient context.

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

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

Although every parameter has a description, they are largely irrelevant to the stated function (e.g., city, timezone, query). The descriptions appear to be generic placeholders, not tied to the tool's purpose, making them misleading rather than helpful.

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 core function: returning HTTP status and content type for a public URL while discarding the body. This distinguishes it from more general fetch tools, though it doesn't mention the unexpected extra parameters.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like fetch-status or browser-url-ok. No conditions, examples, or comparisons are given.

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

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

The description reveals a stateless behavior ('discarded after the call') and implies a boolean existence check, but it omits return values, error cases, network behavior, and output format. Since no annotations are supplied, this limited transparency is insufficient.

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

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

The description is extremely brief and contains no fluff, front-loading the core action in the first sentence. It is well-structured for a simple check.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter-level mapping to the title, the description lacks the context needed to invoke the tool correctly. It never explains how the title is supplied, what response is returned, or what 'exists' means in API terms.

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

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

The schema descriptions cover all parameters, but they are semantically mismatched: ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query are unrelated to a Wikipedia title existence check. No parameter accepts the title to check, making the input contract unusable as described.

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

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

The description states the action ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists') but does not identify which input supplies the title. With nine unrelated optional fields and no 'title' property, an agent cannot confidently map the purpose to a call.

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 prefer this tool over siblings like 'search-query-len' or 'normalize-url'. The sole behavioral note 'Title discarded after the call' does not explain use conditions or expected inputs.

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