Africa/Tunis clock

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

The description mentions 'Task text discarded' and parameter descriptions note values are discarded after shape checks and that path has no disk access. However, without annotations, more disclosure about side effects, cost implications, or exact behavior would be needed.

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 direct, and parameter descriptions are terse. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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

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

The tool lacks an output schema and does not explain how the task is determined from the optional inputs, what 'connection methods' means, or what the returned structure looks like. This leaves some gaps for an agent planning to invoke 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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions, and the descriptions add meaningful context beyond the names by clarifying that values are discarded after shape checks or that no disk access occurs. This is valuable because the parameter names alone could imply real usage.

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 purpose: find a public pay-per-call tool gateway for tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice, and returns connection methods. The phrase 'tool gateway' is slightly ambiguous but the overall intent is clear.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as weather-hint, normalize-url, or search-query-len. It does not explain selection criteria or alternative conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one useful trait ('No browser is launched'), but it does not explain how 'can be opened' is determined—whether a network request is made, whether it is read-only, what side effects occur, or what the return value looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably performs network 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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences totaling ten words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately clarifies the key behavioral constraint. There is no filler or redundancy.

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

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

The description is far too thin for a tool with nine diverse optional parameters and no output schema. It does not explain why parameters like city, json, path, or zone appear in a URL-checking tool, how they are discarded, or what the caller should pass. The schema notes help, but the overall definition leaves crucial context missing for an agent to confidently select and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters with detailed notes (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which means it stays at the baseline of 3. It does not harm clarity because the schema is rich enough.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' It also adds a distinctive behavioral note, 'No browser is launched,' which helps set it apart from sibling tools like playwright-url-ok. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from other URL-related siblings such as fetch-status or web-fetch, so it falls just 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'No browser is launched' implies a lightweight check, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool should be chosen for browser-dependent or fetch-intensive scenarios. With many URL-related siblings, this omission leaves the agent to guess.

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

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

The description does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it performs a side effect, or what 'discarded' means. There are no annotations to clarify behavior, so the agent cannot predict outcomes reliably.

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 brief and easy to read, but brevity is achieved by omitting essential details. A single vague sentence does not adequately structure the operation, 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?

The description lacks an expression parameter, output schema, examples, and constraints. The schema's unrelated fields and the ambiguous 'discarded' note leave the tool functionally unusable from the description alone.

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

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

The schema declares nine parameters—ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query—but none correspond to the arithmetic expression named in the description. The parameter descriptions appear arbitrary and unrelated to the stated purpose, leaving the agent with no way to supply the required 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 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic', which identifies a specific verb and object. However, no input parameter for the expression exists in the schema, and the phrase 'Expression discarded' is confusing and unexplained.

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

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

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no context about expected input format or result. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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

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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is a meaningful behavioral guarantee. However, with no annotations provided, it does not fully describe other behaviors such as network access, error handling, or the fact that many accepted parameters are ignored or discarded.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and a key constraint. It is well-structured and easy to parse with no 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 explains the core output but lacks context for the unusually broad set of optional parameters and does not specify output format or error behavior. Given the complexity of the schema, some additional context about valid usage would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema descriptions. While individual parameter descriptions are explicit about discarding or validation, the tool description does not clarify how the many unrelated parameters relate to the stated URL-focused purpose.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, and explicitly notes that page content is not stored. It is specific about the primary action and output, though it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools that might perform similar URL 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or normalize-url. It only states what it does and that content is not stored, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases without explicit 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states that identifiers are not retained, which hints at privacy but does not explain what processing occurs, what 'classified' means, or whether any side effects exist. The descriptions in the schema mention discarding and checking, but the tool description itself 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 short and free of fluff, but it is so underspecified that brevity works against clarity. Both sentences are relevant, yet they do not convey enough information to be useful. It is concise but not adequately informative.

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

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

There is no output schema, no behavioral details, no usage context, and no explanation of how the nine optional parameters interrelate. Given the complexity of the input and the lack of annotations, the description is far from complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, and the schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') without explaining how each parameter affects classification. The meaning is not harmful but also not enhanced.

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

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

The description 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify what classification means, what output is produced, or what categories are used. The tool name 'compatibility' adds little clarity, and the relationship between the many input parameters and the classification result is left entirely implicit.

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 its many siblings. No alternatives are mentioned, no conditions are given, and the vague purpose makes it impossible for an agent to know which situation this tool is meant for.

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. The description is transparent about not returning WHOIS/ownership data, and several parameter descriptions mention values are 'discarded' or that there is 'no disk access', but the main description does not specify side effects, errors, or output 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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and scope. There is no redundant 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 omits the output format (how labels are returned) and leaves the role of the many optional parameters unexplained. With no output schema and no required parameters, an agent lacks enough 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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is met. However, the main description does not clarify which parameter is the main hostname input, and some schema descriptions (e.g., city, zone, query) are unrelated to splitting a hostname.

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 operation: 'Split a hostname into labels'. It also differentiates from WHOIS/ownership data, but doesn't explicitly identify the 'host' parameter as the primary input.

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

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

The only usage hint is the negative scope 'without WHOIS or ownership data'. It does not name sibling alternatives like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, nor does it specify 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 provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the HTTP method and result type but does not mention side effects, safety, error behavior, or response format details.

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, compact sentence that immediately conveys the core action and output. No filler or redundant wording is present.

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?

While the tool is simple, the confusing parameter schema and lack of usage or output documentation leave an agent uncertain about which arguments are actually relevant and what a typical response looks like. The description does not compensate for the schema noise.

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 with descriptions that appear irrelevant or copied from other contexts (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check', 'City name for a public weather hint', 'IANA timezone name'). Only 'url' aligns with the tool description, and even its description says 'normalize or cite' rather than 'check status'. This is 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 states a specific verb ('HEAD') and resource ('a public URL'), and clearly indicates the output ('return status only'). This distinguishes it from content-fetching or URL-normalizing 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 versus alternatives such as browser-url-ok, web-fetch, or inspect-robots. The phrase 'status only' implies a narrow use case but does not clarify exclusion criteria.

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. 'Path discarded' is the only behavioral detail; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or how unmatched inputs are 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 front-loaded, with no filler. However, it is almost too terse to be useful on its own.

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

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

There is no output schema, no required parameters, and no explanation of how the parser behaves. The presence of many seemingly irrelevant optional parameters makes the tool's 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?

Schema coverage is high, but the parameter descriptions are generic and mostly unrelated to parsing a Figma URL (e.g., city, feed, zone, query). The description adds no tool-specific meaning to the parameters, and it is unclear which of the nine optional fields are actually used.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' The phrase 'Path discarded' hints at behavior but doesn't fully clarify what parsing returns or how it differs from sibling URL 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, domain-shape, or github-repo-shape. It does not mention prerequisites, intended input, 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?

The description transparently states that no disk access occurs, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what 'safe' means, what the return value looks like, or how the many non-path parameters are handled beyond the schema's own 'discarded after' notes.

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 and front-loads the main purpose, with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it omits the criteria for 'safe' and any clarification of the mismatched parameter list, leaving structure adequate but content under-specified.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry all context. It fails to define 'safe', describe the expected return type, or reconcile the many irrelevant input parameters, making the tool's 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 the schema provides 100% coverage, the description adds no meaning to the parameters and the schema itself is internally inconsistent: a file-path checker has no apparent use for ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, or query. The path parameter is described, but the unrelated fields suggest a copy-paste template error.

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 object ('Check whether a path looks safe') and notes no disk access, but 'looks safe' is undefined and the tool's actual schema includes many unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, zone, query), which 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than sibling tools such as browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or normalize-url. The only practical hint is 'No disk access', which implies a lightweight check, but no explicit conditions or alternatives 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses nothing about side effects, rate limits, authentication, error behavior, or data discarding. The schema mentions 'discarded after the call' for several parameters, but the description itself is silent. This is a major 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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than succinct. It omits essential information about which input to provide and what the output looks like. This is not efficient conciseness; it is a lack of necessary detail.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the relationship between the many parameters, or any example usage. An agent cannot reliably invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. However, the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify which parameter is the 'place'. Many parameters (ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) seem unrelated to geocoding. The description fails to map the purpose to the correct parameter, leaving the agent to infer from unrelated 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 states a clear action and resource: 'Latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo.' This distinguishes it from weather-hint and timezone tools. However, it does not indicate which of the 9 schema parameters represents the 'place', leaving the agent to guess between city, zone, query, or others. The ambiguity prevents a higher 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions the service (Open-Meteo) and the output (lat/long), but does not specify conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent cannot decide between geo-hint and other location-related tools without further 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?

The word 'parse' suggests a read-only operation, and some property descriptions mention 'discarded' or 'no disk access.' However, the tool description itself does not clearly state side effects, data retention, or whether network access may occur.

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

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

The main description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. Property descriptions are also terse and consistently one line each.

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

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

There is no output schema, no return-format description, and no error-behavior guidance. The tool has nine optional parameters with many unrelated fields, so the description does not provide enough context for an agent to invoke 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?

Every parameter has a one-line description, but most are irrelevant to parsing a GitHub URL (e.g., city, feed, zone, query), and the url parameter is described generically as 'normalize or cite' rather than as a GitHub URL. With no required parameters, it is unclear which field the agent should actually pass.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('Parse owner and repo') and a specific resource ('GitHub URL'). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling URL/shape tools such as normalize-url and figma-url-shape.

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

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

The phrase 'from a GitHub URL' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over similar siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions that titles are discarded, but says nothing about network access, side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether any parameters affect the result.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. The second sentence adds a small but relevant 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 description provides the core purpose but is incomplete for practical use: it does not describe the output format, how parameters should be used, what inputs are ignored, or what errors or edge cases might occur.

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 nine optional parameters, but the description does not explain which, if any, are meaningful for counting Hacker News stories. The schema descriptions are unrelated to the tool's stated purpose, and the description adds no parameter-level guidance.

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') and a clear target ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool compared with alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions for choosing it over sibling tools such as web-fetch or fetch-status.

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 gives no behavioral detail. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what output to expect, what errors may occur, or whether any inputs are ignored.

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 easy to scan, but the brevity comes at the cost of essential information. There is no structural issue, but the content is too sparse to be effective.

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 required parameters, an agent has no way to know what the tool returns, how the optional parameters affect behavior, or what a successful call looks like. This is severely incomplete for practical use.

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

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

Although every parameter has a schema description, most of them are irrelevant or decoy-like (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, query). Only 'zone' relates to timezone names, but its filtering role is 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 is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') rather than a clear action. It does not state whether the tool lists, validates, or converts timezone names, so an agent cannot tell what invoking it will do.

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 sibling tools such as timezone, tz-africa-tunis, or utc-time. The phrase 'for clock calls' is too vague to guide selection.

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

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

The description discloses that it fetches a public resource and returns counts, but it does not describe error behavior, network side effects, rate limits, or output format. With no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the operation and output. No unnecessary words or redundant details.

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 far too minimal for a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema. It does not explain which parameter supplies the robots.txt target, what 'group counts' means, or what the response structure will be.

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 incompatible with the tool's stated purpose. Parameters like ref, city, feed, json, and zone have descriptions unrelated to fetching robots.txt, and no parameter is clearly identified as the target host or 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?

Description clearly states the action: fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only. It is specific about the resource and output, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tools it differs from.

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 like web-fetch or fetch-status. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or constraints.

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 phrase 'Key discarded' hints that input is not retained, but with no annotations the description fails to state whether this is a pure check, what it returns, or whether it has any external 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 brief and front-loaded, and each schema property has a short one-line description. The structure is concise, though the uniform set of optional parameters obscures which one is actually relevant.

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 100% schema description coverage, the descriptions do not connect to Jira keys. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent cannot confidently choose a parameter or interpret the result.

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?

Nine optional string parameters are listed, but their descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name', 'JSON text to validate') are unrelated to Jira issue keys. No parameter is identified as the key to check, making invocation 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 description identifies the action ('Check') and object ('Jira issue key shape'), so the core purpose is recognizable. However, 'shape' is undefined and no input parameter corresponds to a Jira key, leaving ambiguity about exactly what 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool over sibling validators like github-repo-shape or figma-url-shape. No conditions, prerequisites, or example invocations are provided.

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 behavioral burden, but it only mentions that the body is discarded. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, HTTP method, or any limitations beyond discarding the body.

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 and parameter descriptions are compact with no redundant phrasing. The single-sentence description is tight and free of fluff.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and an unclear purpose; the description does not explain which parameters are primary, how they interact, or what the expected output looks like beyond 'HTTP status'. This leaves substantial gaps for correct invocation.

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

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

All 9 parameters have individual descriptions and the schema coverage is 100%, but several descriptions are semantically unrelated to the stated tool purpose (e.g., 'city' for a weather hint). The descriptions add some meaning, but the connection to 'lib-docs-hint' is weak and the 'discarded after' notes do not clarify actual usage.

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 an output ('HTTP status') but lacks an explicit verb and resource relationship; it is unclear whether the tool checks a URL, returns a hint, or performs validation. The phrase 'public library docs URL' is ambiguous and not clearly tied to the provided 'url' parameter.

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 sibling tools like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, 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?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, read-only behavior, error handling, or whether it accesses any external resource. Saying 'Values discarded' hints at non-mutating behavior, but it is insufficient for an agent to predict side effects confidently.

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 and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant wording. It communicates the core action in two short sentences.

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?

Key context is missing: whether top-level keys only or all nested keys are counted, whether the input is a JSON object or JSON string, and what the return value looks like. The absence of an output schema compounds this ambiguity.

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, many parameter descriptions appear unrelated to counting JSON keys (e.g., ref, url, city, zone). The description does not clarify which of the nine optional strings is the JSON object, and the 'json' field is described as 'JSON text to validate' rather than as the object whose keys are counted.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('Count keys') and a resource ('JSON object'), but it does not specify which schema parameter holds the JSON object or what the output is. The tool name and description are understandable in isolation, yet the mismatch with the input schema creates ambiguity.

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

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

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as validate-json or search-query-len. It does not mention prerequisites, expected input shape, or typical use cases.

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

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

The description describes the output but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, network usage, or whether any state is modified. Since no annotations are provided, the agent is left with limited ability to predict non-output 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 only two short sentences, directly states the behavior and output scope, and contains no unnecessary wording or redundancy.

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

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

With nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no error or edge-case details, the description is not complete enough to support reliable invocation. It also fails to position the tool relative to sibling URL-focused tools.

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

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

Although every parameter has a schema description, most are generic or irrelevant (e.g., city, zone, feed, json), and the tool description does not clarify that only the url parameter matters or how the other optional parameters should be handled. The term 'query' in the description refers to a URL component, while the query parameter has an unrelated description, creating confusion.

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 origin, host, and path from a URL and drops query and fragment, making the primary purpose unmistakable.

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 choose this tool over the many sibling URL-related tools, such as web-fetch or fetch-status, so an agent must infer applicability only from the tool name and one-line 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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that no browser is launched, but does not mention network access, side effects, error behavior, output format, or whether unrelated parameters are ignored.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise, though it sacrifices important detail; there is no structured breakdown of behavior or 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?

The tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns, which parameters are relevant, or how the openability check is performed. Context is severely incomplete for an agent to use it reliably.

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, the descriptions are mismatched with the tool's stated purpose. The 'url' parameter is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than something to check, and most other parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query) appear wholly unrelated to checking URL openability, creating confusion.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a clarifying constraint ('No browser is launched'). However, it is vague about what 'can be opened' means (HTTP status? reachability?) and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like browser-url-ok or 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, what conditions make it appropriate, or how to select among the many schema parameters. The only hint (no browser launched) is a behavioral constraint, 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It only says 'Query discarded,' giving minimal behavioral information. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or how it handles errors or invalid 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using only two short sentences. No words are wasted, and the core purpose is stated 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?

Given 9 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, what constitutes a valid query, or any error/edge-case 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 every parameter has a schema description, most of those descriptions are irrelevant to the stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name', 'IANA timezone name'). The tool description itself provides no clarification about which of the 9 optional parameters should be used, leaving ambiguity about whether non-query parameters are ignored.

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 in a search query') but does not explicitly identify which input parameter is the search query, especially given the schema contains 9 unrelated optional parameters. It is clear enough at a surface level but leaves ambiguity about the intended resource/input.

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 many sibling tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool would be more 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, the description must convey side effects and return behavior; it only says 'catalog', and while parameter descriptions mention discard/no-disk-access, the main tool behavior and output format are not disclosed.

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 easy to scan; it loses a point because it omits critical information that could have been included in the same space.

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 and no output schema, yet the description never explains what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or what 'catalog' means in an operational sense; this is insufficient 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?

Although the schema has full coverage, the parameter descriptions are about Git refs, URLs, cities, timezones, etc., and do not clarify how any of these relate to a catalog of HTTP status codes; the explanations are individually clear but collectively irrelevant and confusing.

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

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

The description identifies the subject ('common HTTP status codes') but uses the noun 'catalog' rather than a concrete verb, and gives no indication of how the nine input parameters relate to the task. It also does not differentiate the tool from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch.

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 statement of when to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling; the only clue is the word 'catalog', which leaves trigger conditions implicit.

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 explicitly notes that the prompt is discarded, and parameter descriptions indicate parameters are discarded after shape checks or no disk access is performed. This provides some transparency about side-effect-free behavior, but it does not explain how the template is generated or any other behavioral aspects.

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

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

The description is extremely brief (two sentences) and each sentence carries information. It is concise and to the point, though the content is minimal. The structure is straightforward and front-loaded with the main action.

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 returned template looks like or how it is used. The tool's purpose in the context of its siblings is unclear, and the description leaves the agent without enough context to know when or how to invoke it effectively.

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

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

The schema covers 100% of parameters, each with a description. However, the description text itself adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats or ignores the parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Return a three-step thinking template') but does not clarify what the template is, how it relates to the parameters, or why it exists. It is not a tautology but remains vague and fails to distinguish the tool from its 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other tools. It mentions no conditions, scenarios, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without any basis for selecting 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 present, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'current time', but it does not disclose side effects, safety, or that the other eight parameters appear unrelated to timezone lookup. The description is somewhat misleading given the broad schema.

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

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

The description is a single, succinct sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for its stated purpose.

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 schema has nine parameters (all optional), the description only addresses one ('zone') and leaves the other eight entirely unexplained. This is a severe completeness gap, as the agent cannot infer the role of the majority of the inputs from the 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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and it does not clarify the purpose of the many unrelated parameters (e.g., 'ref', 'url', 'city').

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 time for a named IANA timezone, which is a specific and actionable purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention the 'zone' parameter, leaving a slight gap in direct mapping.

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 like 'utc-time' or 'iana-zones'. The description only states what it does, without any contextual 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, nor does it explain the purpose of the many seemingly irrelevant parameters (e.g., 'ref', 'url', 'json').

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, which is concise and avoids unnecessary words. However, it lacks structural elements like usage examples or parameter explanations, making it too sparse for a tool with nine 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?

Given the tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how parameters affect behavior, what the output format is, or why certain parameters are accepted.

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, the descriptions are generic and appear unrelated to the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'ref' is described as a Git ref name, 'city' as a weather hint). The description does not clarify which parameters are actually used for the time lookup.

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 tool returns the current local time for Africa/Tunis, which is clear but not phrased as an explicit verb (e.g., 'Get'). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time' that might also return time information.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any conditions, prerequisites, or references 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It states the output but does not disclose that all nine optional parameters are ignored/discarded, nor does it describe the return format or side-effect-free nature.

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, direct sentence with no redundant wording or fluff. It is maximally concise and well-structured for the information it conveys.

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 nine seemingly irrelevant parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the timestamp format (e.g., ISO-8601, Unix time) or clarify why the input parameters are present but ignored.

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 individual parameter descriptions say each value is 'discarded' or checked only for shape, which gives some semantics, but the tool description itself adds no extra parameter 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 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the tool's core purpose and output. It is more informative than a bare verb, though it does not elaborate on scope or alternatives.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like timezone, iana-zones, or tz-africa-tunis. It does not mention use cases 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses one behavior—'The body is discarded'—but does not explain what the caller receives on valid vs invalid JSON, whether errors are thrown, or any other side effects/limits.

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

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

The description is two short sentences, immediately states the core action, and contains no filler or redundant words. It is well-suited to the simple validation task.

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 is simple, but the description omits the result/return behavior entirely. Saying 'body is discarded' does not clarify whether the tool returns a boolean, a success status, or an error for invalid JSON, and no output schema is provided to fill that 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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema's 'json' field is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', which is relevant. However, the description itself says 'body' rather than referencing the 'json' parameter and the other eight optional fields are unrelated to JSON validation, creating potential confusion.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This is a specific verb and object, and the name 'validate-json' reinforces it. However, 'body' is ambiguous—it is not mapped to any input parameter, and the tool could be clearer about whether it validates the request payload or a string in the 'json' field.

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

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

The description gives a basic purpose but no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling validators (e.g., file-path-ok, browser-url-ok, search-query-len). It does not mention conditions, alternatives, or pre-requisites, so an agent has to infer when JSON validation is needed.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose side effects, read-only behavior, external API interactions, or data retention. Some parameter descriptions mention 'discarded' values, but this is not consistent across all fields.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. However, it omits key context about the input parameters and expected 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?

There is no output schema, no required parameters, and no explanation of how the nine input fields relate to the weather request. An agent would not know what response to expect or which parameters are actually necessary.

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 description, but many are unrelated to the weather purpose and do not clarify how they should be used together. For example, 'Git ref name' and 'JSON text to validate' seem irrelevant to getting the current temperature for a city.

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

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

The description clearly says the tool returns current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo, but the 9-field schema includes many unrelated parameters such as ref, url, json, path, and query, which blurs the tool's actual scope.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools, no criteria for choosing a city, and no mention of 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 transparency burden. It does mention that the body is discarded, which is useful, but it does not describe network behavior, redirects, timeouts, error responses, or whether the request is read-only. The description is only partially transparent.

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

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

The description is very concise and front-loaded: it states the main output in the first sentence and adds a critical caveat about the body in the second. No redundant words or filler are present.

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 several functional siblings, but the description does not explain how the extra parameters relate to the core action, what the response shape looks like, or how errors are surfaced. The description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke it in diverse situations.

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 overall tool description only relates to the URL parameter. The URL parameter description says 'normalize or cite,' which mismatches the stated HTTP status/content-type purpose, and the other eight parameters are given only 'discarded' or unrelated 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 clearly states the core function: return HTTP status and content type for a public URL while discarding the body. It is specific enough to distinguish from body-fetching tools, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not reconcile with the many unrelated parameters 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. The phrase 'Body discarded' implies it is not for content extraction, but no explicit use case or alternative 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Title discarded after the call,' implying no persistence, but it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, rate limits, or whether the check 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 very short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence 'Title discarded after the call' is ambiguous and does not earn its place in terms of clarifying 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?

The description is severely incomplete: it does not explain how to provide the title, what result is returned, what 'exists' means (HTTP status, boolean, etc.), or how the listed parameters relate to the operation. The schema mismatch leaves an agent with no reliable way 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?

Although every parameter has a schema description, the descriptions are unrelated to checking a Wikipedia title (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint'). The actual 'title' parameter is missing, so the parameter semantics do not support 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?

The description states a clear action ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists'), but the input schema contains no 'title' parameter and instead lists unrelated parameters like url, city, and query. This mismatch undermines the clarity of what the 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 the many sibling tools (e.g., fetch-status, browser-url-ok, search-query-len). No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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