America/Fortaleza clock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Task text discarded,' which is vague and doesn't explain how the parameters are treated (though the schema hints they are discarded after checks). It doesn't disclose whether the tool makes network calls, requires authentication, or has side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters.

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

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

The description is concise – three short sentences that front-load the purpose and mention the key output. No wasted words. However, it is terse to the point of omitting essential usage context, but for conciseness itself, it's well-structured.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to provide parameters, what the output format looks like, or when to use this tool. Given the complexity and the sibling set, more context is needed.

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% – every parameter has a description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description itself adds no parameter information, so it relies on the schema. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with any additional meaning.

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: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)' and lists what it returns (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings that deal with URL checks, calculations, or citations. However, it does not explain how the parameters relate to the purpose, which slightly reduces clarity.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. An agent has no idea when to pick this over, say, fetch-status 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?

The description discloses that no browser is launched, which is a useful behavioral note. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not explain what 'can be opened' means (e.g., HTTP status, DNS resolution) or what happens with the other parameters. It provides one piece of transparency but omits many others.

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, which front-loads the main action, but for a tool with 9 optional parameters, it is under-specified. It reads more like a stub than a complete definition. While brevity is valued, this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no required ones, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with most of the parameters, which one is the primary input, or what a successful check looks like. The agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a semantic description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description neither helps nor hurts parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a critical clarification ('No browser is launched'). This makes the core action clear. However, with 9 parameters and many sibling tools (playwright-url-ok, fetch-status, web-fetch), it does not indicate which parameter carries the URL or how this tool differs from those siblings.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent is given no selection criteria, such as when to prefer this over playwright-url-ok (which implies browser interaction) or web-fetch (which fetches content). The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Expression discarded' but there is no expression parameter, leaving all behavior opaque. There is no disclosure of side effects, data handling, or what is actually evaluated or checked.

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 vague sentence, which is not effective conciseness but under-specification. It omits critical details about what the tool does and how parameters relate.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool does with any parameter or what the agent can expect from the call.

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

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

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the tool description actively misleads by referencing arithmetic while the parameters are about URLs, timezones, and search text. The description adds no clarifying value and may cause the agent to misuse the parameters.

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

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

The description claims 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic' but the input schema has no arithmetic expression parameter—instead it lists git refs, URLs, cities, JSON, etc. This is misleading and fails to convey what the tool actually does. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like browser-url-ok 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 27 siblings. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. The agent gets no help deciding between calc-eval and other URL/JSON/city-oriented tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Page content is not stored,' which is useful, but it does not explain the behavior for the other parameters (e.g., city, feed, json) or whether they are processed or ignored. It also doesn't mention any side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits essential context about the tool's multi-parameter nature. It front-loads the URL-specific output but does not acknowledge the other parameters, making it misleading in its brevity. It is not structured to help an agent understand the tool's full scope.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It explains only the URL-related behavior and leaves the purpose and effect of the other 8 parameters unexplained. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly without opening the schema, and even then the relationship between parameters is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), which clearly distinguishes the core action. However, it ignores the other 8 parameters in the schema, so the overall purpose is only partially clarified. Siblings like normalize-url and fetch-status are not explicitly differentiated, but the stated output is specific enough.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 27 sibling tools including normalize-url, fetch-status, and browser-url-ok, an agent cannot infer the selection criteria. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy note, but it does not disclose what the tool does, what side effects it has, whether it requires permissions, or what happens to the inputs. The tool's core behavior remains opaque.

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

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

The description is extremely concise (two short sentences), but it is under-specified and fails to front-load the core function. Conciseness without substance is not effective structure.

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, so the description must explain what the tool returns, but it does not. With 9 optional parameters and no explanation of classification logic or expected outputs, the description is entirely inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'), so the schema already provides semantic meaning. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantics.

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

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

The description 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify what classification means, what categories are used, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'domain-shape' or 'file-path-ok'. It is not a tautology but provides minimal actionable information.

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

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

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that appear to handle specific shape checks. No context or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent without guidance on selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only states the splitting action and the absence of WHOIS/ownership data. It does not mention return format, failure behavior, or that most of the nine input parameters appear to be discarded or irrelevant.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word adds meaning, and the key qualifier ('without WHOIS or ownership data') is included without bloating the 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?

Despite a simple operation, the tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so an agent needs more context about which parameter to pass and what to expect back. The one-sentence description is not enough to resolve that ambiguity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds little beyond implying the 'host' parameter is the relevant one. It does not clarify how the other eight optional parameters relate to the stated hostname-splitting purpose, but the schema already documents 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 names a specific operation ('Split a hostname into labels') and a resource (hostname), and the qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' distinguishes it from enrichment tools. It does not explicitly differentiate from URL-normalization or fetch siblings, and the nine-parameter schema introduces ambiguity about scope, so it is not a perfect 5.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance about when to use domain-shape versus siblings like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies a limitation but does not state conditions or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions HEAD and status-only, but does not explain redirect handling, error behavior, or that many input parameters are merely shape-checked and discarded. The schema descriptions hint at this, but the tool description itself is silent on these critical behavioral aspects.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though for a tool with 9 parameters it may be under-specified—but that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how the non-URL parameters relate to the 'public URL' claim, nor does it describe error handling or the exact status format. An agent would need to infer too much from the schema 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?

All 9 parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific verb (HEAD), resource (public URL), and output (status). It is clear, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or web-fetch, and it ignores the many non-URL parameters in the schema, which could confuse an agent about the tool's actual scope.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok or playwright-url-ok. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral note is 'Path discarded,' which is cryptic and does not clarify what happens to the input, whether any external calls are made, what is returned, or side effects. It fails to disclose even the basic nature of the operation.

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, which is concise, but it is so under-specified that it lacks structure and substance. It is not front-loaded with useful context, and the cryptic 'Path discarded' phrase wastes the little space it uses. It reads more like an incomplete note than a structured tool definition.

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

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

With nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, what inputs it expects beyond the URL, what the return value looks like, or any constraints. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool based on 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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the schema descriptions themselves are generic and largely uninformative (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema and does not explain how these parameters relate to the stated Figma URL parsing purpose. The mismatch between the description and the parameter set makes the parameters confusing rather than helpful.

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

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

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Parse a Figma file URL'), which is a start, but it is extremely vague about what 'parse' entails and what the output is. The presence of nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, json, etc.) in the schema conflicts with the single-purpose description, leaving the tool's actual scope ambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings like normalize-url or domain-shape.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. The sibling list includes many URL/shape-related tools, but the description offers no routing information.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose 'No disk access' and notes that some params are 'discarded after the shape check', which gives a hint of non-persistence. However, it doesn't state what the tool returns (boolean? error?), what 'safe' means, or any side effects beyond no disk access. This is minimal transparency for a multi-purpose check tool.

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

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

The description is one short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and misleadingly narrows the tool to path checking when it actually accepts many types. The structure doesn't front-load the tool's general purpose or its return behavior, so conciseness here is detrimental rather than 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'safe' means, what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or how the various parameters relate to the tool's operation. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without substantial 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions are terse and mostly repeat 'discarded after the shape check' without explaining how each parameter is used or what shape is checked. For example, 'City name for a public weather hint' is irrelevant to path safety. The description adds no unifying semantics; it leaves the agent confused about how to set parameters correctly for a specific check.

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 it checks whether a path looks safe, but the tool accepts 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) and only mentions path. This is misleading; it doesn't convey that the tool actually performs generic shape checks across many input types. It also doesn't distinguish it from sibling shape-check tools like domain-shape or validate-json, so an agent can't tell what makes this tool unique.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says 'Check whether a path looks safe' with no context, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. An agent has no basis to decide if this is the right tool for a given input type.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'via Open-Meteo' but does not explain side effects (e.g., external API calls), how other parameters are handled, or what the output format looks like. The schema notes some params are 'discarded' but that is not in the 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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately short, but the brevity comes at the cost of critical usage information.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no required ones, and no output schema. The description only reveals a general purpose, leaving the agent without enough context to select and fill the correct parameter for the task. It is far from complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline of 3. However, the description does not clarify which parameter is the primary input for the geocoding purpose.

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

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

The description states a clear action (return latitude/longitude for a place via Open-Meteo), but it does not specify which input parameter(s) identify the place. It is not a tautology, but it is vague and does not distinguish from sibling hint tools like weather-hint.

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 indication of which parameters are appropriate. An agent would have to guess among the 9 unrelated schema parameters.

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 behavioral burden. It only states that it parses a URL but fails to disclose that the other eight parameters are discarded, that invalid URLs may cause errors, or what the output format is. This is a significant gap for a tool with side effects like parsing.

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

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

The description is a single, compact sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately short for a simple operation, though it could be slightly more structured by mentioning the relevant parameter. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded.

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

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

The tool has nine parameters but only one is used, yet the description does not explain this or the return format. Without an output schema, the agent lacks critical context about what the tool returns (e.g., an object with owner and repo fields). The description is incomplete for a tool with this complexity and no annotation support.

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

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

The schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds no meaning beyond it. Critically, the schema lists nine parameters, but only 'url' is relevant to the tool's purpose; the description does not clarify this, leaving the agent to potentially pass irrelevant parameters. The baseline of 3 is lowered because the description fails to guide parameter selection.

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 ('Parse') and resource ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like figma-url-shape or jira-key-shape. An agent can immediately understand the tool's purpose and 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. The description is purely definitional with no 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions 'Titles discarded' without explaining what the tool does with inputs, whether it makes network calls, what it returns (a count number?), or any side effects. The tool's behavior beyond 'count' is essentially 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 brief and front-loads the primary action, but the trailing 'Titles discarded' is cryptic and not explained. The conciseness is acceptable, but the lack of structure (no sentence about input or output) reduces 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?

Given 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify how to invoke the tool, what the return value looks like, or any constraints. An agent would have no reliable way to call this tool correctly.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic (e.g., 'url: HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') and do not connect to the tool's stated purpose of counting HN stories. The tool description fails to indicate which parameter (likely 'url' or 'feed') should be used, so the agent cannot infer the correct usage.

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

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

The description states a specific verb (count) and resource (current Hacker News front-page stories), which makes the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like web-fetch or normalize-url, and the odd phrase 'Titles discarded' adds ambiguity about what is actually returned.

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, nor any mention of prerequisites or expected input. The description does not explain that the tool likely expects a URL or feed parameter to fetch the front page, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses no side effects, safety profile, input handling, or output format. The schema parameter descriptions mention 'discarded' for some fields, but the tool description itself is silent on all behavioral traits.

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 (one sentence), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks essential content, and the minimal text does not earn its place by conveying meaningful information.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot infer the tool's purpose, which inputs to provide, or what output to expect. The description provides essentially no contextual guidance 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?

The schema has 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3, but the tool description adds no value beyond the schema. Moreover, most parameters (url, city, json, query, etc.) are unrelated to timezone names, and the description does not clarify that only 'zone' is relevant. The parameter descriptions appear generic and not tailored to this tool, so the description fails to compensate.

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' is vague and lacks a specific verb or action. It does not clearly state whether the tool lists names, validates a zone, or returns a fixed set. It fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time' beyond the phrase 'for clock calls'.

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 conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. The phrase 'for clock calls' implies some context but offers no actionable direction for an agent deciding between this and siblings.

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 only states what the tool does at a high level without revealing behaviors such as how the URL is used, what happens if robots.txt is missing or unparseable, whether redirects are followed, or what 'group counts' entails. There is no mention of side effects, limitations, or error handling.

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, so it is concise and not verbose. However, it is under-specified and does not front-load key information beyond the core action. It lacks structure or enumeration of important details, so it is not well-optimized for an agent skimming for usage 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?

Given the tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what 'group counts' are, which parameters are relevant, how the output is shaped, or what errors might occur. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional investigation.

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 parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter semantics—it does not clarify which parameter is the primary input (e.g., 'url') or how the other eight parameters relate to the action. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameters, even though the description adds no value.

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') and resource ('public robots.txt') with an explicit outcome ('return group counts only'). This is clear and not a tautology, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'web-fetch' or 'fetch-status' that could also fetch URLs. The meaning of 'group counts' is left implicit, slightly reducing precision.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about scenarios where inspecting robots.txt is preferable to other fetch or shape-check tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer use cases from the name 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Key discarded,' which is ambiguous and does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether it makes network calls, whether it is read-only, or what happens to the other 8 parameters). It fails to disclose the tool's operational impact.

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 at two sentences, but it under-specifies. Conciseness is appropriate when content is sufficient; here it omits essential details, making it more an under-specification than effective brevity.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'shape' means, what the return value is, or how to construct a valid call. For a validation tool, this is wholly inadequate.

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

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

While schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic and do not relate to Jira keys. The tool description adds no mapping from parameters to the tool's purpose; it does not say which parameter is the key or how the others are used. The mismatch between the tool name and the parameter set confuses rather than clarifies.

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 resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), but it is vague about which input is the key. The schema has 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, zone, query) with no 'key' field, so an agent cannot determine what to pass. It does not distinguish from sibling shape-checkers like github-repo-shape or domain-shape beyond the Jira-specific name.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for Jira key validation, nor does it name sibling tools or conditions for choosing this one. An agent has no basis to select it over other shape-checkers.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Body discarded' which is a useful detail, but it does not clarify whether a network request is made, what exactly is returned (status code, status text), or any rate limits or side effects. The schema notes that many parameters are 'discarded after' some check, but the tool description does not explain this 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 only one short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks critical context about the tool's behavior and parameter usage. The sentence is not front-loaded with the most important guidance; it merely states the purpose and discards the body.

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

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

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 9 parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, which parameters are required or optional for a successful call, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably decide how to invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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

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

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3, but the tool description does not add value beyond the schema. It does not clarify which of the 9 parameters are actually relevant to the stated purpose (HTTP status of a library docs URL). The description implies only 'url' matters, yet the schema includes many others, leaving the agent uncertain about how to use them.

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: it checks the HTTP status of a public library docs URL. However, the input schema includes many unrelated parameters (city, zone, query, json, path, etc.) that are not mentioned, creating confusion about the tool's actual scope. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like fetch-status or normalize-url. The description does not mention any exclusions or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to guess based on the name and brief purpose.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that values are discarded, but omits any side effects, network calls, or security considerations. The schema hints at behaviors like 'no disk access' and 'discarded after the call', but the description does not consolidate these, leaving the agent uninformed about the tool's operational traits.

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 sentences and efficiently states the core function. It is front-loaded with the action, but it is so brief that it sacrifices essential context, making it concise yet 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use it with the various parameter types, or why it exists alongside siblings. An agent would struggle to know when and how to invoke it correctly.

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

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

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it does not exceed this baseline.

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

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

The description states a specific action (count keys) and resource (JSON object), but it is terse and does not differentiate from sibling shape-checking tools like validate-json or domain-shape. It also doesn't mention that the tool accepts multiple input types (url, file path, etc.) as shown in the schema, making its scope 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does state that query and fragment are dropped, which is a clear behavior. However, it fails to explain why the schema contains nine unrelated parameters or that only 'url' is used. It also does not specify return format or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 front-loads the core functionality. It is efficient with no filler. However, it is under-specified because it omits critical context about the other parameters, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness problem.

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

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

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and nine parameters, yet the description is extremely brief. It does not describe the return structure (e.g., object fields), error handling, or why the other parameters exist. An agent would be confused about whether to pass other arguments or how to interpret the result. The description is inadequate for a tool with this complexity and no structured metadata.

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 each parameter has a description. The tool description adds meaning only for 'url' by specifying that query and fragment are removed. The schema descriptions already clarify that other parameters are discarded, so the description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have clarified that only 'url' matters.

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 origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.' This is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like 'browser-url-ok' or 'figma-url-shape'. However, it does not explicitly mention that the other eight parameters are ignored, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. Siblings like 'browser-url-ok' or 'github-repo-shape' exist, but no comparison is offered, so an agent must infer usage from the name and description 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal one behavioral trait ('No browser is launched'), but it leaves many unknowns: whether a network request is made, what the output looks like, whether the operation is read-only, and what happens to the non-URL parameters (many are described as 'discarded' in the schema, but the description doesn't explain that). This is insufficient for a tool with such a broad schema.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence) and front-loads the core purpose and a key behavioral caveat. However, it is so sparse that it sacrifices completeness; the single sentence does not earn its place fully because it leaves too much unstated. It is concise but under-specified, so a 3 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 nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this tool requires substantial description to be usable. The description only addresses a single URL check, gives no context on the other parameters, return values, or failure behavior, and does not clarify the relationship to sibling tools. It is severely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level guidance and does not help interpret the odd mix of parameters (city, feed, zone, etc.) in the context of URL checking. Baseline is 3 because the schema covers the parameters, but the description adds zero value here.

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 ('check') and resource ('a URL'), and adds a distinguishing trait ('No browser is launched'). However, it is vague about what 'can be opened' means (syntactic validation vs. network reachability) and entirely ignores the nine other input parameters, which suggests the tool may do more than check URLs. This ambiguity prevents a higher score.

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

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

The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It only implies that this is a non-browser variant, but it does not name alternative tools like 'browser-url-ok' or state conditions for choosing between them. An agent has to infer usage from the name and the 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Query discarded' but doesn't clarify that the other 8 parameters are ignored or what happens with them. It doesn't mention side effects, storage, or the fact that it's a pure length computation. The presence of many unrelated parameters without explanation is a transparency gap.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the key side effect (query discarded). This is appropriately concise 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, none required, and no output schema or annotations. The description only explains the query parameter's purpose, leaving the other 8 parameters unexplained. The tool appears to be part of a family of shape/validation tools, but its name and description don't clarify why it accepts url, city, etc. This makes the definition incomplete for an agent trying to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. The description itself adds minimal value beyond stating 'query' is the focus. It doesn't explain why url, city, feed, etc. are included or how they relate to the tool's purpose. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to clarify the interplay between parameters.

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

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

The description states 'Count characters in a search query' which is a specific verb and resource, and the name 'search-query-len' reinforces this. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from other count tools like memory-key-count or hn-front-count, but the resource is distinct enough. The primary purpose is clear, though it doesn't mention the other parameters.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state any conditions, exclusions, or context for calling it. The schema has 9 optional parameters, but there's no instruction on which ones are relevant or how to choose this tool over sibling tools like domain-shape or calc-eval.

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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'short catalog' – no mention of side effects, network access, data persistence, or what happens to the input parameters. The agent cannot anticipate whether the tool makes calls, validates, or simply returns static content.

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 fluff, making it concise. However, it is so brief that it lacks substantive information. It is appropriately sized for a very simple tool but fails to deliver needed context, so structure is acceptable but not exceptional.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how parameters influence output, or any operational details. An agent would have no idea what to pass or what to expect, making this inadequate for a tool of this 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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a descriptive comment (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but since the schema fully documents each field, the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not help explain why these diverse parameters relate to a status-code 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 states a resource ('catalog of common HTTP status codes') but uses a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource structure. It does not say what the tool does with its 9 heterogeneous parameters, so the purpose is only vaguely indicated and not differentiated from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what happens with the inputs, what 'discarded' means, what the template looks like, or any side effects. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is cryptic and unexplained.

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 (one sentence), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits essential context about the template and parameter usage. No front-loading of key constraints; the only extra phrase 'Prompt discarded' is confusing.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool actually does, how inputs influence the output, or what the template contains. This is inadequate for any realistic 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high and the description does not add value—it does not, so 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Return a three-step thinking template') but the purpose is ambiguous—what is a 'three-step thinking template' and why does it have 9 unrelated parameters? No distinction from siblings is made. 'Prompt discarded' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description gives no clue about its intended role among the 27 sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the output ('current time') without mentioning that only the 'zone' parameter is relevant, or that the other eight parameters are ignored/discarded. This lack of clarity could mislead an agent into thinking all parameters are meaningful.

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 waste. It is concise, though arguably too terse given the tool's many irrelevant parameters. Efficiency is high, but it sacrifices necessary detail.

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

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

With nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to clarify that only 'zone' is used, does not mention potential errors or limitations, and leaves the agent unaware of how to invoke the tool correctly given the large schema.

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%, with each parameter individually documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema already fully describes 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 clearly states the tool returns the current time in a named IANA timezone. It is specific about the resource (timezone) and the action (returns current time). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'utc-time' or 'iana-zones', but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer the basic function.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'utc-time' (for UTC time) or 'iana-zones' (for listing zones). The description gives no context on selecting it over related tools, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the output ('current UTC timestamp') and does not reveal that the 9 parameters are validated and discarded, that the tool has no side effects, or any other behavioral details such as auth, rate limits, or return format. This is a significant omission.

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 (one short sentence) and not bloated, but it is under-specified. It fails to earn its place by omitting critical context about parameters and behavior, making it minimally acceptable rather than well-structured.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the parameters, the return format, any validation behavior, or when to use the tool, leaving an agent with insufficient information to call it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds no parameter information, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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

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

The description 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the tool's function, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', and the presence of 9 seemingly unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) without any explanation in the description creates confusion about the tool's actual purpose and 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 this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or conditions. The description is a single phrase with no context about appropriate use cases, making it impossible for an agent to decide when to select this tool over siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the body is discarded, but does not explain side effects, error handling, response format, or any restrictions. For a validation tool, the absence of such details leaves agents guessing about 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 only two sentences, highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. No filler or redundant text, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify which parameter to use, what the response looks like, or how to interpret the validation result. The schema adds confusion rather than clarity, making the tool nearly impossible to use correctly without external knowledge.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description does not clarify which parameter represents the 'body' (likely 'json'), and several parameters (ref, url, city) are irrelevant to JSON validation. The description adds no meaningful guidance, and the schema itself is misleading due to unrelated fields, so a baseline 3 is not warranted.

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 ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') with a clear resource, and the tool name confirms the purpose. However, the schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (e.g., ref, url, city) that obscure the actual input, making the purpose less clear than the text alone suggests.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would steer an agent toward or away from this tool compared to siblings like domain-shape or jira-key-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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool makes a network call, what happens if the city is invalid or missing, or any side effects. The single sentence gives no behavioral context beyond the implicit action.

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 redundancy, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and lacks essential details, so it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It is minimal but not effectively front-loaded with the most critical information.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, none required, and no output schema, the description fails to specify which parameters are needed, what the output looks like, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly without additional 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?

While schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic and not tailored to this tool (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL', etc.). The description adds no clarification that only 'city' matters, so an agent might mistakenly pass irrelevant parameters. The high coverage does not compensate for the lack of tool-specific parameter meaning.

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 function: retrieving the current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like geo-hint or timezone, though the weather domain is distinct enough.

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

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or required parameters. An agent has no indication that the 'city' parameter is the key input or that other parameters are irrelevant.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the body is discarded, which is useful. However, it fails to mention that the tool accepts many unrelated parameters (city, zone, ref, etc.) and discards them, leaving the agent confused about the tool's actual scope. The description is misleading because it implies the tool only handles URLs, while the schema suggests broader shape-checking 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 extremely concise—two short sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and states a key behavioral detail (body discarded). This is an ideal length for a simple tool, though the brevity comes at the cost of 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, many of which seem unrelated to the description's single focus on URL fetching. The description provides no information about the other parameters, the output format, or the tool's broader capabilities. Given the complexity and lack of an output schema, this description is grossly inadequate for an agent to correctly use the tool in all its intended 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters have descriptions, but the tool description adds no value in clarifying how they relate to the tool's purpose. It doesn't explicitly state which parameter is the URL, and it doesn't explain why parameters like 'city' or 'zone' exist. The description could help by mapping parameters to the stated behavior, but it doesn't, leaving the agent to guess.

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 fetches a public URL and returns HTTP status and content type, with body discarded. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from other URL tools by specifying the exact output. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, so it's not fully differentiated, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 like browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or normalize-url. The description doesn't mention any exclusions or preferred scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for a tool with many URL-related siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It notes that the title is discarded after the call, a privacy/behavioral detail, but it does not disclose that the tool likely makes a network request to Wikipedia, nor does it mention error behavior, rate limits, or side effects. The single behavioral note is minimal.

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 (two sentences) but not concise in a useful way. It omits essential information about input parameters and return values, making it under-specified rather than efficiently 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, none required, no output schema, and no usage guidance. The description does not explain what the tool returns, how to invoke it correctly, or what the expected input is. For a tool with such a large parameter surface, this is completely inadequate.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, none of the parameter descriptions mention 'title' or align with the tool's stated purpose. The description itself does not map any parameter to the Wikipedia title, leaving the agent unable to determine which input to provide. This is a critical gap.

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 function: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'browser-url-ok' or 'domain-shape'. However, it does not indicate which parameter carries the Wikipedia title, leaving invocation ambiguous.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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