America/Anchorage clock

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Expression discarded,' which is confusing because no expression parameter exists. No disclosure of side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the tool does with the actual parameters.

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

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

The description is short, but brevity is not conciseness here – it under-specifies the tool. The single sentence provides no actionable structure or front-loaded context, and it actively misleads about the tool's function.

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

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

With nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool actually does with any of the parameters, how results are returned, or any constraints. An agent has no reliable basis to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds zero meaning to the parameters. Worse, the description's mention of arithmetic contradicts the schema's fields, which are unrelated to arithmetic. An agent cannot infer how 'ref', 'city', or 'json' relate to the tool's purpose.

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

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

The description claims to evaluate 'a+b style arithmetic' but the input schema contains nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with no expression parameter. This is misleading – an agent would expect an arithmetic expression input but finds none, and the purpose is entirely unclear relative to the actual schema.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any of its 27 siblings. There is no mention of context, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits the task.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Titles discarded' but does not disclose whether the tool performs network access, whether it is read-only, what happens on failure, or what the exact return format is. The description is too sparse to convey the tool's behavior beyond the basic count.

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, with only two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a clarifying note about titles. There is no wasted wording, making it efficient 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 that there are 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the parameters are for, how to set them, or what the return value looks like. The tool appears to have a simple purpose, but the presence of unrelated parameters creates confusion that the description fails to resolve.

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

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

The description does not mention any of the 9 input parameters, even though they are all optional. The schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') and seem unrelated to counting HN stories. The description adds no meaning to the parameters, leaving an agent unclear about how to use them or whether they should be omitted entirely.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Count') and a clear resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools, which mostly deal with URLs, files, or validation. The added clause 'Titles discarded' further clarifies what is not included.

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. It does not mention any exclusion conditions or suggest a preferred tool for related tasks. An agent gets no help in deciding between this and other web-fetching or validation 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 that the response body is discarded ('Body discarded.'), which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool follows redirects, performs a HEAD request, or handles errors, nor does it explain how the many unrelated parameters are used or discarded. The single behavioral note is insufficient for a tool with such a broad schema.

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

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

The description is very concise—one sentence with the key action front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, omitting essential details about the tool's broader capabilities and parameter usage. Conciseness alone does not compensate for the lack of substance.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the additional parameters, the expected input format, or what the tool returns beyond an HTTP status. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly without more 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 provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters interact or which is primary. It only mentions a URL, leaving the agent to infer that 'url' is the key parameter, but the description does not confirm this or explain the role of the other parameters. Thus, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific purpose: 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL.' However, the input schema includes 9 parameters, many of which are unrelated to URLs (e.g., 'city', 'json', 'zone'), and the description does not clarify whether the tool serves other functions or how these parameters fit. The purpose is thus vague and inconsistent with the schema, making it hard for an agent to know what the tool actually does beyond a narrow use case.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., fetch-status, browser-url-ok, normalize-url). The description does not mention any alternatives or conditions for selection, leaving the agent without context for tool choice.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one meaningful behavior—'Prompt discarded' tells the agent that inputs will not affect the output—which is valuable. However, it stops there; it doesn't say whether the returned template varies, whether there are side effects, or what the template contains, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler words. It earns its brevity, though the extreme terseness borders on under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin to be complete. It doesn't explain what a 'three-step thinking template' is, how the 9 parameters relate to the tool's actual function, or what an agent should expect back. The schema covers parameter semantics but the overall tool contract remains underspecified.

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%—all 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema—so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema already documents each parameter's semantics (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), so no additional compensation is required.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Return a three-step thinking template'), which is better than a tautology, but 'three-step thinking template' is vague—it doesn't explain what the three steps are or why an agent would invoke this. It does not distinguish this tool from the 26 siblings (e.g., domain-shape, file-path-ok) whose names suggest similar shape-checking purposes, so an agent cannot tell which tool fits a given task.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives are provided. The terse phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints that inputs are irrelevant, but the description never states when an agent should select this tool over the many shape/check siblings in the list.

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