America/Costa_Rica clock

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: the tool returns CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, and remote MCP hops, and it discards task text. However, it does not clarify network access, cost implications, authentication, or whether any state is persisted.

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 three short sentences with no filler and front-loads the core purpose before listing outputs and a behavioral caveat. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because terms like 'Monid' and 'task text' are not clarified, though the structure itself is efficient.

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

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

With nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives an agent little guidance on how to construct a valid call, which parameters matter, or what the returned index structure looks like. The listed return artifacts are helpful, but operational completeness is low for a tool with this much schema surface area.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that task text is discarded, which the schema already conveys for several parameters. It also does not explain why all nine parameters are optional or which one selects the gateway.

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

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

The description uses an explicit verb ('Find') and names a concrete resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), then lists what it returns. This distinguishes it from the sibling URL/format/status helpers. It is not a 5 because 'Monid' and the relationship between the index and the gateway are left 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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the 27 siblings, no exclusions, and no alternative tool names. The only usage signal is the verb 'Find', which leaves routing to the agent largely to inference.

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

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

The only behavioral disclosure is the negative statement 'No browser is launched.' It does not reveal side effects such as network requests, rate limits, or what happens with the input parameters. Most parameter descriptions mention 'discarded' or 'no access,' but these are not part of the main tool description, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

The description is concise with only two sentences, but it omits essential information about the parameters and behavior. It is not overly verbose, but it is insufficiently structured given the large and confusing schema, so a middle score is appropriate.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to understand how the tool works, what inputs are meaningful, or what result to expect. The mismatched parameter descriptions and lack of usage guidance make it 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?

The schema contains 9 parameters, but their descriptions are inconsistent and often unrelated to URL checking (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint,' 'JSON text to validate'). The descriptions do not clarify how these parameters affect the check, and they actively confuse the tool's purpose. The coverage is 100% but the meaning is poor.

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: 'Check whether a URL can be opened' and explicitly distinguishes from browser-based tools with 'No browser is launched.' However, it does not specify the method (e.g., HTTP request, DNS check) or how it relates to sibling tools like fetch-status or web-fetch, so it is slightly less than fully 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where it is preferred over sibling tools such as normalize-url or playwright-url-ok.

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

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

The only disclosed behavior is that the expression is discarded, which is vague and possibly contradictory given the unrelated schema. With no annotations available, the description was expected to carry the full burden of explaining side effects, return behavior, and handling of the 12 parameters; it does not.

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 and could be considered concise, but it is under-specified. The second sentence 'Expression discarded' adds ambiguity rather than clarity and does not earn its place without further context.

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 a large 12-parameter schema and no annotations, the description leaves the calling convention, expected inputs, outputs, and side effects almost entirely unaddressed. An agent cannot confidently invoke or integrate 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?

The description does not explain how to pass an arithmetic expression, and the schema parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, binary, email, ip, hash, phone) are entirely unrelated to arithmetic. An agent cannot map the stated purpose to any input, making the tool practically uncallable.

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 ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic') and a resource, so the core purpose is somewhat clear. However, it is undermined by the schema: none of the 12 parameters carries an expression, and the phrase 'Expression discarded' is ambiguous about what is returned. It also does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings like 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or context. An agent has to infer the entire usage scenario from the terse description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does add a meaningful non-obvious trait: page content is not stored. However, it does not disclose network behavior, failure modes, rate limits, or whether any requested URL is actually fetched.

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 no filler. The first sentence states the core action and outputs; the second adds a privacy guarantee. This is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, nine optional parameters, and a large sibling set, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the response format, how to handle the unrelated optional parameters, or when to prefer this tool over nearby siblings. The one-sentence status and privacy note only partially compensates.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters already have documentation. The tool description adds little beyond identifying 'URL' as the core input; it does not clarify how the other optional parameters relate to the host/scheme/status output. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter explanation.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and names exact outputs (host, scheme, HTTP status) for a URL, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like web-fetch by adding 'Page content is not stored.'

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, alternative tool names, or exclusion criteria. The privacy note is a behavioral hint, not enough for an agent to decide between this and similar URL tools like fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch.

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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description need not repeat those. It adds a valuable privacy guarantee, 'No identifiers are retained,' which is consistent with the non-destructive, read-only profile. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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

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

The description is only two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and adds a useful privacy note with no filler. Both sentences earn their place. It is slightly too terse to be considered fully appropriate for the tool's complexity, but structurally it is clean and efficient.

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 seven heterogeneous optional parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of how the classification result is expressed or which input is expected. The privacy note is helpful, but the description still leaves an agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly or interpret its result. The generic name and vague classification wording make this incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 seven parameters have their own schema descriptions, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about whether the parameters are alternatives, should be combined, or which one should be supplied for a given classification request. The schema carries the semantic weight, and the description does not go beyond it.

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

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

The description states a verb and object: 'Show how this request is classified,' which gives a general purpose, but never explains what classification scheme or compatibility criteria are involved. The tool name 'compatibility' is generic and does not distinguish this from the narrow sibling probes like browser-url-ok or file-path-ok. It is vague rather than tautological, so it earns a 3.

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 'Show how this request is classified' only implies a use case: use when a classification is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative sibling tools. Given the large family of similarly narrow checks, an agent has little basis for choosing this tool over 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, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait: no WHOIS/ownership lookup and a local split operation. However, it does not describe the return format, error behavior, or whether any network or DNS validation occurs, leaving clear gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the WHOIS qualifier earns its place. It is concise, though perhaps too sparse to serve as a complete definition for a tool with a seven-parameter schema.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description needs to supply more usage and return context, but it only gives the core split action and a negative qualifier. The schema's extra parameters (ref, url, city, feed, json, path) are not reconciled with the hostname-only description, and no alternatives or output format are mentioned.

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% per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter detail. The description's 'hostname' maps naturally to the `host` parameter, but the tool description does not clarify which of the seven parameters apply or whether they are mutually exclusive.

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 ('split') and resource ('hostname'), and the 'without WHOIS or ownership data' qualifier narrows it to syntactic label extraction. It does not explicitly distinguish among the sibling shape tools, and the schema's many unrelated fields (ref, city, json, path) create some ambiguity, but the sentence itself 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?

The only usage hint is the negative qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data,' which tells the agent what not to expect. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternative, and no mention of how this tool relates to siblings like normalize-url, web-fetch, or browser-url-ok.

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 disclosure burden. 'HEAD a public URL and return status only' communicates a read-only request and a narrow output, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior around redirects, timeouts, errors, or how the nine optional parameters are treated, so transparency is only partial.

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

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb, target, and output are stated immediately, making it easy for an agent 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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling family, a one-line description is not enough. An agent cannot tell which parameter to supply, what the status response looks like, or when this tool is preferable to the adjacent URL-checking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, which normally sets a baseline of 3, but the description narrows the tool to 'a public URL' while the schema exposes eight other parameters such as city, feed, json, path, zone, query, ref, and host with no explanation of how they relate to a HEAD request. The url parameter's own schema text ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') also does not match the described behavior, so the description adds confusion rather than semantic clarity.

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 operation (HEAD), the target (a public URL), and the output (status only), so the core purpose is understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or web-fetch, and the schema's nine unrelated-looking parameters introduce some ambiguity about the 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?

There is no guidance on when to use fetch-status versus browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The description does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or any exclusion criteria, leaving all tool-selection logic to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does note that 'Path discarded,' which is a behavioral detail beyond the bare purpose. However, it does not clarify output, handling of non-Figma URLs, or whether any network or side effect is involved.

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: it states the purpose first, then adds one behavioral note. Each sentence earns its place, though the terseness contributes to ambiguity.

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 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain which parameter to pass or what result to expect. An agent could not confidently invoke this tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no meaningful parameter guidance, such as which of the nine optional properties should be populated for a Figma URL. 'Path discarded' largely echoes the existing path parameter description.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. The added 'Path discarded' is somewhat ambiguous but does not undermine the core 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would infer to use this tool when it needs to parse a Figma file URL. The description does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when another shape 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 carries the behavioral burden; it does state the key guarantee 'No disk access,' which is useful. It does not describe the return value or define what 'looks safe' means, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the important 'No disk access' caveat follows 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?

The tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema, but the description and path parameter together are enough for the common invocation. It does not clarify that other schema fields are ignored, nor what the check returns, leaving moderate gaps for full autonomy.

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 every parameter, including 'File path to check.' The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the implicit focus on path, so 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 and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling URL/title/wikipedia checkers, and the added 'No disk access' clarifies it is a pure shape check.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need to validate a file path's safety without touching the filesystem. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as browser-url-ok or wiki-title-ok, nor does it state 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?

The description mentions Open-Meteo as an external source, but it does not disclose side effects, network behavior, rate limits, or whether data is cached. No annotations are provided, and the schema descriptions inconsistently mention 'discarded' data without clarifying actual 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, clear sentence and is appropriately brief. However, the schema contains many redundant and confusing placeholder-like descriptions that add noise rather than value.

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

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

The description does not specify the expected input parameter, output format, error behavior, or examples. With nine optional parameters and no output schema, an agent has insufficient context to reliably invoke the tool.

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

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

The schema has nine unrelated, all-optional parameters with generic or misleading descriptions (e.g., city for a 'weather hint', query for a 'length check'). It is unclear which parameter represents the 'place' for which coordinates are returned, and no parameter 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 the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, which is a specific and useful purpose. It distinguishes the tool from weather, timezone, and URL-oriented siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'resolve.'

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 sibling tools such as weather-hint or timezone. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, 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 readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safe, read-only nature of the tool. The description adds only the basic parsing behavior and does not disclose edge cases like invalid URLs or return format, but there is no contradiction with the annotation.

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 short sentence with no filler. The core action and target resource are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

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

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

For a simple parse tool, the description conveys the primary input and output. However, it leaves ambiguity around the nine optional schema parameters and does not explain malformed-input behavior, and there is no output schema 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that the url parameter is expected to be a GitHub URL and that owner/repo are extracted, but it does not add substantial parameter-level detail 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 uses a specific verb ('Parse') and a concrete resource ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'), making the tool's core function clear. It is distinguishable from sibling shape tools by its GitHub-specific scope, though it does not explicitly name 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?

Usage is implied: the tool should be used when the agent has a GitHub URL and needs to extract owner and repo. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from related tools like normalize-url or domain-shape.

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, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a read-only counting action and the meaningful output constraint that titles are discarded. However, it does not state the return format, how input parameters are handled, or any edge cases.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and resource immediately. The second sentence is minimal but informative. It could be slightly clearer, but there is no wasted text.

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 clear purpose, the description is incomplete for a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema. It does not explain whether the agent should pass a feed URL, any parameter, or no arguments, and it does not describe the response format beyond implying a count. An agent would likely need to experiment or inspect other context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3. It does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters matter for this tool.

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: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that fetch URLs, check statuses, or validate shapes. The added phrase 'Titles discarded' does not obscure the core 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives, whether parameters are needed, or what context calls for it. An agent must infer the invocation context from the tool name and single sentence.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description itself must carry behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, what it returns, or how the listed parameters affect the timezone data; the only behavioral hints are buried inside schema parameter descriptions rather than the tool description.

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 declarative sentence, front-loaded with the core concept and free of filler. It is appropriately concise, though it is too sparse to reach the highest rating.

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, a one-line description plus an unrelated seven-parameter schema leaves critical gaps: return format, expected input for timezone lookup, and relationship to sibling time tools. The definition is minimally viable but insufficient for confident selection and correct invocation.

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

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

The schema describes each of the seven parameters, but none of them relate to a timezone name, creating a mismatch with the stated purpose. The description adds no guidance on which parameter to use to get the IANA names, so an agent cannot reliably map inputs to the tool's apparent intent.

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

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

The description names a resource ('common IANA timezone names') and its intended domain ('for clock calls'), but uses no verb and does not say whether the tool returns, validates, or lists these names. It suggests differentiation from the timezone/utc-time siblings, but that differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'for clock calls' is the only implied context; alternatives such as timezone or utc-time are never named, and no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that only group counts are returned, not the full robots.txt, and that the fetch targets a public resource. However, it is silent on error/redirect behavior, rate limits, or whether the response includes per-group 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?

Single sentence, no waste, and the qualifier 'group counts only' is an essential behavioral restriction rather than fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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, a one-sentence description is insufficient for a tool exposing seven parameters with varied purposes. The description leaves the target parameter, output shape, and error behavior undefined.

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 seven parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3; the tool description does not add parameter-level meaning. It fails to identify which parameter (likely host or url) supplies the robots.txt target, leaving the agent to guess among heterogeneous params.

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 ('Fetch'), a resource ('public robots.txt'), and a precise output ('return group counts only'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does and that it is not a full-content fetch. This distinguishes it from sibling fetch tools even without naming them.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over web-fetch, fetch-status, or other URL-based siblings. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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

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

With no annotations and a vague 'Key discarded' phrase, the description does not disclose return behavior, side effects, or what happens to the key. The tool's observable behavior is effectively opaque.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded, but it is so under-specified that the second sentence, 'Key discarded,' adds confusion rather than clarity. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of meaningful content.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, interpret results, or understand the shape rules being checked.

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 descriptions for 9 parameters, none of them corresponds to a Jira issue key, and most are unrelated boilerplate (e.g., city, feed, host). The description fails to map the stated purpose to any actual parameter.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' However, 'Key discarded' is ambiguous and the description does not identify which input parameter holds the key, leaving the exact purpose partially unclear.

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 the many sibling shape-checking tools, nor any mention of appropriate contexts or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the body is discarded, which is useful. However it does not mention network side effects, redirect handling, timeouts, auth, rate limits, or that most schema parameters are ignored after a shape check.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The key purpose and a core behavioral fact are front-loaded. It is concise rather than 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?

The tool has nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain the role of the discarded parameters, what the returned status looks like, error behavior, or how to choose among the many sibling fetch/status tools. It is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and it leaves ambiguous whether 'url' is the active parameter, especially because the schema describes it as 'normalize or cite' and lists eight other optional params.

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 operation ('HTTP status') on a specific resource ('public library docs URL') and adds the body-discard behavior. It is not a tautology. It loses one point because the many unrelated schema parameters are not reconciled with this purpose, so the exact scope vs siblings like fetch-status is not spelled out.

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 'public library docs URL' implies when the tool is appropriate but offers no exclusions or alternatives such as fetch-status for generic URLs or web-fetch for body retrieval. No when-not-to-use guidance is 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 behavior burden. It does reveal a non-obvious behavior—values are discarded—and counting implies a read-only operation. However, it does not state the return type or clarify whether the input object itself is consumed, so the behavioral picture is only partially complete.

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 no filler; the action is stated first and the value-discarding caveat is placed immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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

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

For a simple counting tool, the description plus a fully described schema is minimally viable: an agent can infer that keys are counted and values are placeholders. But with no output schema, no annotation, and a 9-parameter schema whose relationship to the JSON object is ambiguous, the definition is not fully actionable without extra inference.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the 9 parameters are individually documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds the global insight that only the presence of keys matters, but it does not resolve which parameter represents the JSON object to count or how the 9 unrelated strings should be populated.

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

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

The description identifies a specific operation—counting keys in a JSON object—and adds the useful behavioral note that values are discarded. This separates it from validate-json and the shape-check siblings, which validate or return ok/not-ok rather than count. It loses a point because it does not state whether the JSON object is the tool-call arguments object or a JSON value passed through one of the parameters.

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

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The active phrasing 'Count keys...' implies the obvious use case, but an agent is not told how to choose this over validate-json or the other count/check 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 must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped and that origin, host, and path are returned, but it does not mention error behavior, handling of the many unrelated schema parameters, or whether any input is mutated or persisted.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core output is front-loaded, and the behavioral constraint about query and fragment follows directly.

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?

A simple tool can be adequately described at this length, and the description covers the core transformation. However, there is no output schema and no mention of the return format or how to handle the numerous unrelated schema parameters, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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

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

The schema already describes all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic meaning beyond the schema: notably that query and fragment are stripped from the URL and that the result contains origin, host, and path. However, it does not clarify which of the eight schema properties is the primary input beyond the implicit reference to 'URL'.

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

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

The description states a specific verb (Return) and resource (URL), and explicitly names the output fields: origin, host, and path. It also specifies what is dropped (query and fragment), making the tool's function unambiguous even before examining the schema.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as domain-shape, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. There are no exclusions, alternative recommendations, or contextual conditions 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 present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that no browser is launched, but it does not state whether a network request is made, whether this is purely a syntax/shape check, what side effects or output to expect, or how the result is returned. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loads the primary purpose with no filler. However, the brevity borders on under-specification: it omits usage, parameter guidance, and result details, so it earns full marks for conciseness but not for completeness.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, which parameter(s) are actually relevant to the stated purpose, or how it differs from several closely related sibling tools, leaving important invocation decisions unresolved.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. While the schema documents each parameter, many of them (ref, city, json, zone, query) appear unrelated to checking a URL, so without further mapping the agent may still struggle to choose the right parameter.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: check whether a URL can be opened. The phrase 'No browser is launched' adds a useful scope constraint, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, and 'can be opened' remains ambiguous between syntactic validity and actual reachability.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or web-fetch. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated, so the agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

"Query discarded" is a useful disclosure that the input is not retained, which is important given no annotations are present. However, the description does not clarify that the tool only counts characters and takes no other action, especially when schema fields suggest shape checks, normalization, or validation 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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy. Both sentences earn their place, though the brevity contributes to the missing mapping between the description and the schema.

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 7-parameter tool with domain-specific schema fields and no output schema, two sentences are insufficient. The agent lacks the information needed to invoke the tool correctly, including which field represents the search query and what the count behavior actually applies to.

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

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

The schema descriptions cover each parameter, but the description refers to a "search query" that does not exist as a schema property. An agent cannot determine which of ref, url, city, feed, host, json, or path should be populated, so the description adds confusion rather than parameter clarity.

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?

"Count characters in a search query" is a specific verb and object, but it does not map to any parameter in the input schema—there is no `query` field. The description also does not distinguish it from the many sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess the intended resource.

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 instead of siblings like validate-json, normalize-url, or web-fetch. There are no conditions, exclusions, or 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the catalog is 'short' and 'common'. It does not describe side effects, return format, error behavior, or why parameters like 'ref' and 'json' are 'discarded after the shape check'.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded, but 'short catalog' is filler and the overall definition is too thin to be useful. It reads more like a subtitle than an operational tool description.

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

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

For a tool with seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what input to provide, what output to expect, or whether the tool is a safe read-only lookup.

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

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

The schema already provides descriptions for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and actually creates a semantic mismatch by suggesting a static catalog while the parameters imply validation or normalization behavior.

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 essentially a noun-phrase restatement of the name ('status-catalog' -> 'catalog of status codes'), only adding 'HTTP' and 'common'. It does not specify the operation (list, return, explain, validate), and the seven unrelated input parameters make the intended purpose more confusing rather than clearer.

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 status-catalog instead of sibling tools such as fetch-status, domain-shape, or validate-json. No alternatives, exclusions, prerequisites, or routing conditions are mentioned.

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

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

The description openly discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is a meaningful behavioral trait not carried by annotations. It does not mention side effects, required inputs, or output details, but for a tool that appears to return a static template this is a reasonable level of 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 only two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the output, the second states a key behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 conceptually simple, an agent is left without guidance about which parameters to pass, what the three-step template looks like, or how this tool relates to the sibling tools. The lack of an output schema and annotations makes this one-sentence description insufficient for confident invocation in ambiguous contexts.

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

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

The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the input schema descriptions are abundant, each stating the parameter's purpose and that it is discarded after use. With schema description coverage essentially at 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not need to repeat 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 concrete verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is not a tautology and the name 'think-steps' aligns with the stated behavior. However, it does not specify what the template contains or how it relates to the 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?

'Prompt discarded' is a useful warning that the tool ignores the prompt, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent is not told when to prefer this tool over the many sibling tools or whether it is intended as a fallback/stub.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic operation but does not explain return format, error behavior for invalid zones, or the fact that only the zone parameter is relevant while the other eight schema properties are effectively 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?

One short sentence with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it is too terse to carry the behavioral and routing guidance the tool needs.

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

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

Given nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not identify the key parameter, mention what the response contains, or reconcile the mismatch between the timezone purpose and the many unrelated schema properties.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond naming the IANA timezone, and it does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters should actually be supplied.

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 operation: return the current time for a named IANA timezone. It is specific enough to distinguish from zone-listing or validation tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling utc-time tool.

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 purpose statement implies when to use the tool: when the current time in a named IANA timezone is needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it discloses no behavior beyond returning a timestamp. It does not state that parameters are discarded or ignored, that there is no disk or network access, or what format the timestamp takes. The schema hints at some behavior, but the description itself adds no 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 only a three-word noun phrase and omits essential information about inputs and behavior. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, especially given the complex 9-parameter schema and sibling tools.

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 are no annotations, no output schema, a large optional parameter set, and no mention of return format or handling of the parameters. An agent would not know whether passing a URL, city, or JSON value affects the result, and the description is too sparse to be complete 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each of the 9 optional parameters already has a description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the documentation work.

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 phrase 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly identifies the resource returned, but it lacks a verb and does not explain the tool's relationship to its 9 input parameters. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', so an agent gets only a minimal sense of 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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description never says to call this when a current UTC time is needed, never mentions the unrelated optional parameters, and never names alternative tools or exclusions, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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

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

The description discloses that the body is discarded after validation, which is useful behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, with no annotations available, it does not explain return behavior, success/failure signaling, or other 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 two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is stated immediately. It earns its place by being compact 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?

For a simple validation tool this is borderline adequate, but the description relies heavily on the schema for parameter meaning and provides no information about output or invocation context. Given the tool's seven parameters and the availability of sibling validators, more context would help.

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 seven parameters have schema descriptions, so schema coverage is high and the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema sufficiently documents each field, including the relevant "json" parameter.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: "Check whether a body is valid JSON." This distinguishes it as a validation tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the many sibling shape-checking 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, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The agent is left to infer that it is for JSON validation based on the name and minimal description.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an external Open-Meteo dependency but says nothing about return units, failure handling, side effects, or the fact that most schema parameters are discarded. Minimal 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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, for a tool with seven parameters and no annotations, this brevity leaves important context unexplained; it is short rather than efficiently complete.

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 annotations, no output schema, seven input parameters, and an external API dependency, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits required-parameter information, the return shape, and behavioral caveats. The schema descriptions partially compensate, but the tool-level context is too sparse.

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

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

The schema already provides descriptions for all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the Open-Meteo association and clarifies the 'city' field's role, but it does not explain why the other fields exist or how they relate to the weather 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 'Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo', which clearly identifies the tool's result and data source. It is not worded as a verb phrase and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like geo-hint, but the core purpose is 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 about when to use weather-hint versus alternate tools, nor which of the seven schema fields should be supplied. The description states capability but provides no selection criteria or invocation context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the response body is discarded, which is a meaningful side-effect. However, it does not mention redirects, error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response structure.

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 tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint immediately, which is easy for an agent 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 no annotations, no output schema, nine optional parameters, and a crowded sibling group, the description is under-specified. It does not explain which parameter to supply, what the returned status/content-type representation looks like, or how it differs from closely related tools, so an agent cannot confidently 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%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond implying that the `url` property is the relevant input, and it does not clarify how the other optional parameters relate to the fetch behavior.

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 deliverable: HTTP status and content type for a public URL, and explicitly notes the body is discarded. It conveys a specific operation and resource, though it does not differentiate itself from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or inspect-robots. The 'public URL' hint implies a scope but no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection 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 behavioral burden. It discloses only that the title is discarded after the call, but does not mention what the call returns, whether it performs a network request, or why the input schema has no title-like parameter. This omission creates confusion about the tool's actual 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 short and has no filler, but the brevity crosses into under-specification: it introduces a 'title' concept that the schema never names. Efficiency does not compensate for the missing parameter mapping.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should name the required input and explain the return value or result semantics. It does neither, and the mismatch between the description and the schema makes correct invocation unreliable.

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 six parameters with individual descriptions, but none corresponds to a 'title', which is the tool's core concept. The description adds no parameter-level guidance and actually conflicts with the schema, leaving an agent unable to determine which parameter to populate.

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 ('Check') and resource ('Wikipedia title exists'), which is clear on its own. However, it does not distinguish from sibling validation/shape tools like domain-shape or browser-url-ok, and the key 'title' resource does not appear in the input schema.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, validate-json, or domain-shape. The only usage signal is the name, and the description offers no exclusions or conditions.

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