America/Chicago clock

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 does mention 'Page content is not stored,' which is a useful guarantee. However, it omits other important behaviors such as whether it makes a network request, follows redirects, or handles invalid URLs. The transparency is partial, hence a 3.

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—two short sentences—with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and includes one relevant behavioral note. It is optimally sized for a simple tool.

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

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

Given the mismatch between the description and the schema parameters, plus the lack of output schema or error behavior, the description is not complete enough for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and constraints. It fails to explain the role of three out of four parameters, making the tool's overall behavior ambiguous.

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

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

The schema has four parameters (url, host, json, zone), but the description only references URL functionality. The parameter descriptions in the schema are present but unrelated to the tool's stated purpose, and the description does not clarify how host, json, or zone fit into the tool's behavior. This leaves significant semantic gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource (host, scheme, HTTP status for a URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json.

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

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

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It lacks any explicit comparison or contextual cues, such as 'Use this when you need a quick HTTP status check.' The only additional note, 'Page content is not stored,' offers a minor hint but no actionable selection 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states that identifiers are not retained, but does not mention side effects, processing steps, or what happens to the 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 very brief, with two short sentences and no unnecessary filler. It is easy to read and does not waste tokens.

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 variety of input parameters and the large sibling tool set, the description is too incomplete. It does not explain the classification output, how the parameters combine, or why a user would choose this tool over the related utilities.

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 all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is met. However, the description does not add any extra meaning about how url, host, json, and zone are used or which are 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 says 'Show how this request is classified' which gives a vague sense of purpose but lacks a specific verb and resource. It does not clarify what 'classified' means or how it relates to compatibility, making it hard to distinguish from sibling tools.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone. The privacy note 'No identifiers are retained' is useful but does not explain the appropriate context for invoking 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?

The description discloses the main behavior and implies a read-only transformation. However, it does not mention edge cases such as invalid hostnames, trailing dots, IDN handling, or whether the output is an array or some other structure. There are no annotations to supplement this.

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

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

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It communicates the main action and a key exclusion efficiently.

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 the short description, the tool is not contextually complete because the parameter schema appears mismatched or copied from unrelated tools. An agent would not be able to reliably determine which parameters to use or what the correct input should be for splitting a hostname.

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 parameter descriptions are inconsistent and largely irrelevant. 'url' is described as a URL to normalize or cite, 'json' as JSON text to validate, and 'zone' as an IANA timezone name, which do not align with splitting a hostname into labels. Only 'host' seems plausibly relevant, but even its description is generic.

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: splitting a hostname into labels. It also explicitly excludes WHOIS or ownership data, which helps differentiate it from domain-information tools. However, it does not explicitly mention the expected input parameter or the exact output format.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The name and description imply a hostname-labeling use case, but no alternative tools are referenced and no conditions for selection 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 carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It is a noun phrase with no verb, no mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, return format, or whether it validates, normalizes, or lists data. It provides essentially no behavioral information.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is so sparse that it omits essential action and context. While concise, it is under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters and no other documentation. It is not effectively front-loaded because there is no substantive content to front-load.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, how the parameters interact, what it returns, or when to invoke it. An agent cannot correctly call this tool based on the provided description alone.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter context (e.g., how 'zone' relates to url/host/json), but it does not mislead. It fails to clarify the apparent disconnect between timezone focus and unrelated parameters, yet the schema already documents each field individually.

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

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

The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' conveys that the tool relates to timezone names but lacks a verb indicating what the tool does (e.g., list, validate, get). It does not distinguish from siblings like 'timezone' or 'tz-america-chicago'. The mismatch between the description (timezone-focused) and schema (which includes url, host, json) further muddies intent.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. An agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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

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

The description implies a read-only fetch but does not explicitly state side effects or privacy/security considerations. No annotations are provided to fill this gap.

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

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

The description is extremely brief, but it lacks structure and fails to convey essential information. While it is concise, it omits details that would make the tool usable.

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 incomplete: it does not explain what 'group counts' means, how parameters relate to the task, or what the output format is. The mismatch between parameter descriptions and the tool's purpose leaves significant gaps.

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

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

The parameter descriptions in the schema are generic and mismatched (e.g., 'url' described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' instead of indicating a robots.txt URL). The tool description does not clarify the purpose of any parameter, making it impossible to understand how to use them correctly.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (fetch) and the resource (public robots.txt) and specifies the output (group counts only). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which deal with robots.txt.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or comparisons to sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json.

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

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

The description discloses the tool's output behavior (returning origin, host, path) and its handling of query and fragment (dropping them). It does not mention side effects or errors, but the described behavior is clear and aligns with the tool's stated function.

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 conveys the tool's core action and output. There is no superfluous wording.

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

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

The description is incomplete because the input schema contains parameters that are not explained or are irrelevant to the stated purpose. Without further context, a user cannot confidently determine what to pass for 'host', 'json', or 'zone', making the tool's full usage unclear.

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 explain any of the parameters. The schema includes parameters like 'host', 'json', and 'zone' that are unrelated to URL normalization, and their descriptions are confusing (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'). The only relevant param is 'url', but the description gives no guidance on how to use the others. This creates significant ambiguity.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to return the origin, host, and path for a URL, and specifies that query and fragment are dropped. This is a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes its core function.

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

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

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like validate-json or timezone, leaving the user to infer usage context.

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

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose side effects, output format, or read-only behavior. The word 'catalog' implies a read-only lookup, but this is not made explicit.

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

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

The description is only one sentence and has no fluff, which is concise. However, it is too sparse to convey useful structure or operational details, so the brevity works against clarity.

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

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

The tool is underspecified: no return format, no explanation of the parameters' relevance, no example, and no output schema. The description alone is not enough for an agent to know what to pass or what to expect.

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 unrelated to HTTP status codes: url is 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', json is 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', and zone is 'IANA timezone name'. These appear copied from other tools and do not clarify how they relate to this catalog.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as a catalog of common HTTP status codes, which matches the name. However, it does not specify the exact action (e.g., 'returns' or 'lists') beyond the noun 'catalog'.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description does not mention any use case, prerequisites, 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 does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function. There are no annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) to supplement, and the description itself does not mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether it is a read-only operation. This leaves the agent without important context.

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

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

The description is concise and to the point, using a noun phrase that is easy to parse. However, it is extremely short and lacks context about parameters or expected output. The structure is acceptable for a simple tool, but the terseness contributes to incompleteness.

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 incomplete for a tool with four parameters. It does not specify the output format (e.g., ISO 8601, human-readable), how the zone parameter should be formatted (e.g., full IANA name, abbreviation), or handle edge cases like invalid zones. The lack of explanation for url, host, and json also leaves major gaps.

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

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

The schema lists four parameters (url, host, json, zone), but only 'zone' aligns with the description. The descriptions for url, host, and json are generic and irrelevant to a timezone lookup, and the description does not explain their purpose or relationship to the tool. This creates confusion and fails to clarify how to use each parameter.

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

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

The description 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' clearly indicates the tool returns the current time for a specific timezone, distinguishing it from siblings like utc-time which likely returns UTC, and tz-america-chicago which is a specific timezone. However, it does not explicitly state the action verb (e.g., 'get' or 'return') and is terse.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use this when you need the current time in a specific IANA timezone' or contrast with utc-time or other sibling tools. No comparison or selection criteria 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 behavior beyond returning the time is disclosed. The tool does not mention how it handles the provided parameters (url, host, json, zone), whether any are required or ignored, or if it makes network calls. With no annotations, the description fails to provide essential behavioral 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, concise sentence that communicates its core function without unnecessary wording. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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

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

The description is too brief to cover the tool's context. It omits any mention of parameter handling, relationship to sibling tools, or edge cases. Given the presence of unrelated schema fields, the description is incomplete for a proper understanding of how to invoke and rely on the tool.

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

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

The description does not explain any of the four parameters. While the schema includes descriptions (e.g., 'IANA timezone name' for zone), the tool description does not clarify that zone is redundant because the tool is fixed to America/Chicago, nor does it explain why url, host, and json are present. This creates confusion about their actual meaning and necessity.

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 local time in the America/Chicago timezone, which is a specific and unambiguous purpose. It differentiates from the generic 'timezone' sibling by its fixed zone, though it does not explicitly mention 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 use this tool versus the sibling 'timezone' or 'utc-time' tools. It is implied by the name that it is for Chicago time, but the description itself offers no usage context or selection 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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses no side effects, required permissions, return format, or error behavior. The phrase 'Current UTC timestamp.' is entirely opaque about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified to the point of uselessness. It does not convey essential information about the tool's operation, and the brevity works against clarity. The structure is not helpful.

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

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

There is no output schema and no explanation of what the tool returns, how input parameters are used, or what 'UTC timestamp' means in the context of the provided schema. The tool is contextually incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

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

Though the schema covers all four parameters, their descriptions are generic and unrelated to the stated purpose of returning a UTC timestamp. For example, 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'JSON text to validate' have no obvious connection to time. The parameter descriptions are misleading rather than informative.

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.' is a noun phrase and fails to state what the tool actually does. It does not specify any action or behavior, and it is unclear how the tool relates to the input parameters (url, host, json, zone). The purpose is effectively missing.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or how this tool differs from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'. The description gives no usable 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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one important trait: the body is discarded, implying no persistent state or heavy processing. However, it doesn't state what the tool returns (e.g., boolean success/failure), error behavior, or whether it handles malformed input gracefully. This is partial transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and the key behavioral note about discarding. This is model efficient and easy to parse.

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

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

Given four parameters (most irrelevant to JSON validation) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify which parameter is the input, what the return value is, or how to handle errors. The agent lacks the information needed to call this tool correctly without opening the schema or guessing.

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

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

The schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' for url) and do not relate to JSON validation. Only the 'json' parameter has a relevant description, but the tool description refers to 'body' without connecting to that parameter. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema and actually introduces ambiguity by using 'body' instead of 'json'.

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

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

The description clearly states the core action: checking whether a body is valid JSON, and notes the body is discarded. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like citation or normalize-url. However, 'body' is ambiguous—it doesn't explicitly map to the 'json' parameter in the schema, so the agent might wonder which input is meant.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where another tool (e.g., one that parses JSON) would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and vague description.

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