America/Guatemala clock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait: 'Task text discarded.' It also states what it returns. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as whether the tool makes network calls, has costs (pay-per-call), or what side effects occur with the input parameters. The disclosure is partial and leaves important aspects unaddressed.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. There is no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the role of the parameters, how they are used, or what the agent should pass. The statement 'Task text discarded' hints at some filtering, but the overall workflow remains unclear. The agent cannot confidently determine correct invocation from this 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 all nine parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, not even clarifying why these disparate parameters exist or how they relate to the purpose. Baseline is 3 for high coverage, and no extra value is provided.

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 ('Find') and object ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)') and lists the returned content (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). It is clear enough, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, and the connection between the listed parameters and the stated purpose is opaque.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of its 28 siblings. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to alternative tools. The agent is left to infer when this is the appropriate choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that no browser is launched, but fails to mention whether it performs network requests, what it returns, or whether it has side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for an agent to predict tool 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 the main action front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise; it omits essential context that the agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with the parameters, what a successful or failed check means, or how it relates to sibling tools. An agent cannot reliably 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?

The description makes no reference to any of the nine parameters. Although the input schema has 100% coverage, the tool's logic is opaque—there is no explanation of how parameters like ref, city, or feed relate to the URL check. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a negative behavioral note ('No browser is launched'). However, it is vague about what 'can be opened' means (HTTP status, reachability, etc.) and does not differentiate it from siblings like fetch-status or playwright-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 instead of alternatives such as normalize-url, playwright-url-ok, or fetch-status. The description gives no context for selection criteria 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 provided, so the description carries full responsibility. The only behavioral claim is 'Expression discarded', which is nonsensical given the lack of an expression parameter. No side effects, permissions, or error behavior are disclosed; the description actively misleads about the tool's 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 extremely short, which could be a virtue if accurate, but it is under-specified and misleading. It does not front-load useful information; it states a purpose that the schema cannot support. This is not conciseness but severe under-specification.

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, no annotations, and a misleading description, an agent cannot determine how to call this tool correctly or interpret results. The description fails to bridge any gap between the tool's name and its actual behavior.

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

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

Although the schema has 100% description coverage for its 9 parameters, the tool description adds no meaning to them and instead suggests a completely different parameter set (an arithmetic expression). The schema descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') imply a generic shape-checking tool, not arithmetic. The description fails to align with the parameters, so it adds negative 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 claims 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic' but the input schema exposes 9 unrelated string parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) with no arithmetic expression field. This is misleading, not merely vague — an agent would have no way to supply an expression, and the stated purpose contradicts 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 26 siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, conditions, or exclusions. An agent gets zero help choosing this over, say, 'search-query-len' or 'validate-json'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that page content is not stored, which is useful, but it does not disclose that most parameters are discarded after checks (as noted in the schema descriptions) or any side effects, permissions, or output format. The description is too sparse to inform safe use.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no other context. It is not appropriately sized given the complexity; it sacrifices completeness 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's high complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain how the parameters interrelate, what the expected output is beyond the URL case, or any preconditions. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly for most of its declared parameters.

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, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Worse, it focuses only on the URL parameter and ignores the other eight, potentially confusing an agent about which parameters are relevant and how they relate to the stated purpose. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of a unifying theme.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), but it is misleading because the input schema accepts nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.). It does not accurately represent the tool's full scope, so an agent cannot tell what the tool really does beyond the URL case.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., normalize-url, fetch-status, validate-json, weather-hint). No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess which of the 9 parameters to supply for a given task.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It offers only a privacy note ('No identifiers are retained') but does not explain what the tool does, what it returns, or whether it makes network calls or performs validation. The schema parameter descriptions hint at checks and discarding, but the tool description itself is silent on its 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 short (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks essential content about purpose and usage, so the brevity is not a strength; it is a deficiency.

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, this description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what 'classification' means, what the tool accepts, what it produces, or when to use it. An agent has almost no basis 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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, each with a clear meaning (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds no group-level semantics or relationships between parameters, but since the schema already documents them, a 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 vague verb 'Show' and a resource 'how this request is classified', but 'classified' is ambiguous and does not specify the tool's actual function. It does not distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., domain-shape, validate-json, normalize-url), leaving the agent unable to tell what unique capability it offers.

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 neither mentions scenarios for use nor contrasts with any sibling tools, so an agent cannot decide when this is the appropriate choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool avoids WHOIS/ownership data, but does not disclose that many parameters are 'discarded after the check' (as the schema notes), whether there are side effects, or what the output structure is. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with 9 heterogeneous 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 a single concise sentence with no waste, which is good for conciseness. However, it is so brief that it omits essential context, making it more under-specified than efficiently concise. The structure is front-loaded but fails to cover 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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with the other parameters, what the return value looks like, or how the tool behaves under different inputs. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool for most of its parameters 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify how the hostname-splitting function relates to the other parameters, but the schema descriptions are adequate for individual 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 a specific action for the 'host' parameter ('Split a hostname into labels') and distinguishes it from WHOIS/ownership data, but it completely ignores the other 8 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, json, path, zone, query). An agent cannot infer the tool's overall purpose from this description, making it misleading for the majority of its inputs. It does not clearly state that this is a multi-purpose validation 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., github-repo-shape, figma-url-shape, normalize-url). The description offers no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to guess which of the 27 sibling tools is appropriate 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 must disclose behavior, but it only mentions HEAD on a URL. The schema hints at a broader role (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access') that the description completely ignores. It fails to reveal that most parameters are discarded or that the tool likely returns a status indicator for many input types, not just HTTP status.

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 and front-loaded, but it's under-specified. It lacks structure and doesn't provide any context beyond the action. It's not overly verbose, but it's too sparse to be effective.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, the meaning of 'status', or how to choose among the many input types. An agent cannot 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of all nine parameters, each with a description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no extra meaning and actually narrows the scope to URL-only, which could confuse agents. Since the schema is complete, the baseline of 3 applies, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('HEAD a public URL') but the schema reveals nine diverse parameters (url, json, path, zone, query, etc.), suggesting the tool actually handles many input types, not just URLs. This mismatch makes the purpose ambiguous and potentially misleading—an agent might think it's URL-only when it appears to be a generic shape/status checker.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (browser-url-ok, web-fetch, normalize-url, validate-json, etc.). It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the vague 'HEAD a public URL' statement.

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 discloses only that the path is discarded, but says nothing about the output format, whether it is a read-only operation, any side effects, or error behavior. The description also conflicts with the schema's 'url' parameter description ('normalize or cite'), creating confusion about what the tool actually does.

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

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

The description is only one sentence and thus concise in length, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks structure and front-loaded information; the single statement does not earn its place because it omits critical details about behavior and parameters.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what inputs are needed, what the tool returns, or how the parameters relate to the stated purpose. The mismatch between the description and the schema further compounds the incompleteness.

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 are individually documented, but the description adds no meaning beyond that. It does not identify which parameter is relevant to the stated purpose (presumably 'url'), nor does it explain the roles of the other eight parameters. The description's focus on Figma URLs is not reflected in the schema, which mentions normalization/citation, so it fails to clarify parameter 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 clear verb ('Parse') and a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), and adds a behavioral detail ('Path discarded'). However, it is vague about what 'parse' entails (validation, extraction, normalization?) and does not distinguish it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Path discarded' as a behavioral hint but does not state the intended use case, prerequisites, or any conditions that would select this tool over siblings. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful note ('No disk access'), but it omits critical behavior: what the return value looks like, whether the tool discards input data (which the schema hints at for some params), and what constitutes a 'safe' path. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that presumably has more complex 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) and front-loaded, which is structurally fine. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary information; it reads more like an under-specified stub than a deliberate, efficient description. It earns a middle score for brevity but loses points for leaving out essential 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 nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain how the parameters interact, what the tool actually checks for beyond paths, what output the agent can expect, or any edge cases. An agent would be unable to use this tool correctly based on the description alone, especially given the mismatch between the name and the broad 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds nothing about parameters and actively misleads by only mentioning 'path' while the schema lists nine parameters. It does not clarify that the tool may behave differently depending on which parameter is supplied, nor does it explain the meaning of the other fields beyond their schema descriptions. The description fails to compensate for the schema's breadth and creates confusion.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('check') and resource ('path') and adds a safety qualifier, but it is vague about what 'safe' means and gives no indication that the tool accepts nine unrelated parameters. It fails to differentiate from sibling shape-checkers like browser-url-ok or domain-shape, and the schema's extra fields (ref, url, city, etc.) are entirely unexplained, making the actual purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling shape-checking tools. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned. The only additional note, 'No disk access,' is a behavioral fact, not usage guidance.

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 are absent, so the description carries full responsibility. It provides no behavioral traits: no side effects, no data retention (though schema mentions 'discarded'), no requirements, and no return format. The description's claim about latitude/longitude is unsupported by schema descriptions.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential details about parameters and output, failing to earn 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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to call the tool, what it returns, or which parameters are relevant. The description and schema are so inconsistent that the tool is effectively unusable from documentation alone.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds nothing about parameters. Moreover, the schema descriptions themselves contradict the purpose (e.g., 'city' is for a weather hint, not lat/long). The description does not clarify which parameter maps to the 'place', leaving the agent unable to select parameters correctly.

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

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

The description claims to return latitude/longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, but the input schema parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) describe unrelated validation/check operations, none of which obviously produce a place. The description is vague and misleading about the tool's actual 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like weather-hint or geo-hint. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'parse owner and repo' without specifying output format, error behavior, or how the other 8 parameters are handled. The schema mentions 'discarded after the shape check' for some fields, but that is in the schema, not the description, so the description itself reveals nothing beyond the basic 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, which is concise, but it is under-specified and lacks structure. It does not front-load critical information or explain the tool's scope relative to its schema. The brevity is not a strength given the complexity of 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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, how to invoke the tool correctly, which parameters are required (none are, but still), or what happens with the non-URL inputs. An agent cannot reliably use 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?

Although schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds no parameter meaning and actually misleads by implying only a URL matters. It does not clarify which of the 9 parameters are relevant to 'GitHub URL' parsing or how they relate. The schema descriptions are present, but the tool description fails to connect them to the tool's purpose, so an agent cannot determine which inputs are needed.

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 ('Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL'), but it is inconsistent with the input schema, which contains 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, path, etc.). This creates ambiguity about what the tool actually does and does not distinguish it from siblings like domain-shape or jira-key-shape beyond the GitHub reference.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no way to know when to choose this over domain-shape or other shape-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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Titles discarded' but does not disclose that all parameters are discarded after a shape check, nor does it explain side effects, network access, or return format. The gap between the stated purpose and the parameter behavior is significant.

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 the content is misleading and does not front-load the essential information. The phrase 'Titles discarded' adds confusion rather than clarification, making the brevity counterproductive.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to invoke it meaningfully, or why the parameters exist. An agent cannot safely call it without additional context.

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 no parameter meaning; it only says 'Titles discarded,' which is irrelevant to the parameters. No value beyond the schema is provided.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('Count current Hacker News front-page stories') but the connection to the nine parameters is entirely opaque. It reads as a specialized tool, yet the schema suggests a generic shape-check utility; the mismatch undermines 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 the many sibling shape/validation tools. The description does not mention any alternatives or conditions that would lead an agent to pick this one.

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 not explain what happens to the input parameters (e.g., whether they are validated, discarded, or used to retrieve timezone names), nor does it describe side effects, outputs, or limitations. The parameter descriptions hint at some parameters being 'discarded', but the tool-level description is silent on 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 sentence, which is concise in length but under-specified. It does not front-load any actionable information and leaves the reader with more questions than answers. This is under-specification rather than effective 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, how parameters are used, what it returns, or when to call it. The single sentence does not provide enough context for an agent to correctly select or invoke the tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no meaning about how parameters relate to IANA timezone names. However, the schema descriptions are present and mostly clear, though they appear unrelated to the stated purpose (e.g., 'ref', 'url', 'json'). Since the description does not compensate or enhance the schema, a 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 is a noun phrase 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' with no verb or action. It does not state whether the tool returns, validates, lists, or looks up timezone names. It also does not differentiate from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', which likely deal with timezone operations. The intent is vague.

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 context, exclusions, or specific conditions that would trigger its use. The description does not reference any sibling tools or scenarios.

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 mentions fetching (implying a network call) and returning only group counts, but does not disclose failure modes, rate limits, or which parameter is actually used. The schema's many 'discarded after' notes are not connected to the fetch behavior, leaving the tool's execution semantics 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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose (fetch robots.txt) and the output restriction (group counts only). This is appropriately short and 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 required ones, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain which parameter to set, what the return format is, or how errors are handled. The agent would need to inspect the schema deeply and still might not know 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but those descriptions are generic (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') and none mentions robots.txt. The tool description does not bridge this gap or indicate which of the 9 optional parameters is the target for the fetch. Thus it adds no value beyond the schema and actually introduces ambiguity.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (fetch robots.txt) and the result (return group counts), which gives a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling tools, and the input schema has 9 generic optional parameters with none explicitly labeled for robots.txt, leaving the agent unsure which parameter to supply to achieve the fetch.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or related sibling tools. An agent cannot determine whether to pick this over, say, web-fetch or normalize-url.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Key discarded,' which implies read-only behavior, but it does not specify which parameter is the key, nor does it mention whether any network calls occur, what happens to the other parameters, or any side effects. The parameter descriptions inconsistently mention 'discarded' for some but not all, adding confusion.

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, which is technically concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being useless. It omits critical information about how to use the tool, which parameter is the key, and what constitutes a valid shape. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary guidance; this is not appropriate brevity but rather a placeholder.

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 grossly incomplete. It does not explain how to specify the Jira key, what the expected output is (e.g., boolean, string), or any error conditions. The tool is essentially unusable without further clarification, especially given the unrelated parameter set.

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 description adds no mapping between parameters and the tool's purpose. The parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are diverse and none obviously correspond to a Jira key. The description fails to clarify which parameter to use, so it adds no value beyond the schema and actually leaves the purpose ambiguous.

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 a Jira issue key shape'), but it does not define what 'shape' means (e.g., regex, format) and none of the nine parameters appear to be a Jira key, making it unclear which parameter to use. It also fails to differentiate from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, which perform analogous checks.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 26 siblings including multiple shape-checking tools, the absence of any selection criteria is a major gap. 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only mentions 'Body discarded,' which is minimal. It does not state whether the tool performs network requests, requires authentication, or is read-only. Given the parameter set includes file paths and JSON validation, the behavior is unclear and under-disclosed.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains only two pieces of information (HTTP status and body discarded), neither of which compensates for the tool's complexity. It fails to provide essential context while being terse in a harmful way.

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 fields, no output schema, and a complex multi-purpose appearance, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters are prioritized, or what the 'hint' actually is. An agent cannot determine how to 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema; it does not clarify which parameter to use for the stated purpose or how the parameters relate to the library docs URL. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description's lack of additional insight keeps it at 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 resource (public library docs URL) and action (HTTP status), but the parameter list spans city, feed, json, zone, and query, which are unrelated to library docs. This creates a misleading scope that does not distinguish the tool from siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status. The purpose is vague and misaligned with the actual capabilities.

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 exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose it over similar URL-checking siblings. The description implies a narrow use case (library docs) that contradicts the broad parameter set, potentially misrouting an agent.

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

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

The description discloses the core behavior (counting keys and discarding values) but does not mention side effects, permissions, error handling, or how input is selected. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it only partially fulfills it by not explaining the input mechanism or output format.

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 the primary action front-loaded. No wasted words; every part contributes to the core purpose.

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

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

The description is incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters. It does not specify which parameter holds the JSON object, what the return value is, or how the other parameters affect the operation. Given no output schema, this is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect usage.

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

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

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning; it does not indicate which parameter contains the JSON to count or how the other parameters are used.

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

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

The description states a clear action: count keys in a JSON object, and specifies that values are discarded. This is specific and not tautological, distinguishing it from general tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json or fetch-status, though the name and action are 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?

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention error handling for invalid URLs, whether the operation is network-based, or the format of the returned data. These gaps are notable for a tool that returns structured components.

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 immediately conveys the core action and a key behavior (dropping query and fragment). It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler or unnecessary detail.

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

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

The description is incomplete given the tool's complexity. The schema includes nine parameters, many of which appear unrelated to URL normalization (e.g., city, zone, json), yet the description only discusses the URL. It doesn't clarify that only the 'url' parameter is used or that others are ignored. Additionally, there is no output schema, and the description doesn't specify the return format (e.g., object vs. string). This leaves an agent uncertain about how to use the 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?

All nine parameters have descriptions in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the URL behavior. The schema already explains each parameter, including that many are discarded after checks, so the description adds no additional semantic 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 clearly states the action: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' It names the resource and the specific components returned, which makes the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, so it doesn't fully clarify when this tool is the right choice.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., browser-url-ok, fetch-status) would be preferable. An agent is left to infer usage from the tool 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No browser is launched', which is a negative claim that raises more questions than it answers (e.g., how is the check performed? what side effects occur? what does 'ok' mean?). No information is given about permissions, error handling, or return format.

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

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

The description is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical context and provides only a vague claim. While brevity is good, it fails to earn its place by conveying necessary 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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or what constraints apply. For a tool with such a broad schema, 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds nothing about the parameters. It does not explain why parameters like 'city', 'zone', 'json', or 'query' appear in a URL-checking tool, nor how they relate to the check. The schema descriptions are terse and the tool description offers no clarification, so the odd parameter set remains confusing.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') but immediately contradicts it with 'No browser is launched', leaving the actual behavior ambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, which likely have overlapping purposes. The verb and resource are present but the meaning is muddled.

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 similar shape-checking siblings (e.g., browser-url-ok, domain-shape, normalize-url). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria. An agent has no basis for selecting this over its peers.

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 'Query discarded,' which discloses one side effect. But it is silent on the behavior with the other parameters, the output format, and any potential side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to meet it.

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, consisting of two short sentences, but it is under-specified. It lacks critical information about scope and behavior, so while it is efficient in length, it is not appropriately structured for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema, and no annotations. The description is critically insufficient: it does not explain how to handle the other parameters, what the return value is, or when to prefer this tool over siblings. An agent cannot call it correctly with this 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 already describes each parameter, so baseline is 3. However, the description's exclusive focus on 'query' could mislead an agent into thinking only that parameter matters, while the schema includes many other fields. This adds confusion rather than value, lowering the score.

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

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

The description states a clear action: 'Count characters in a search query.' However, it does not acknowledge the other eight parameters in the schema, creating ambiguity about the tool's full scope. It is distinguishable from sibling shape-check tools only by implication, not explicitly.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the schema.

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 doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation, what side effects exist (if any), or that parameters like 'ref' and 'city' are discarded after a check. The schema descriptions hint at discarding, but the main description is silent.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It lacks critical information and does not front-load any actionable details, making it more of a placeholder than a useful 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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or when it should be invoked. An agent has essentially no information to decide on or use 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?

The schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the description itself adds nothing about parameter meaning or relationships; the parameters seem unrelated to HTTP status codes, and the description does not explain how they connect.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase, 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' lacking an explicit verb or action. It doesn't clarify whether the tool lists codes, looks up a specific code, or validates something. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling 'fetch-status' tool, which likely has a similar 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?

The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch-status' or 'web-fetch'. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Prompt discarded,' which hints that the input prompt is ignored, but it does not explain how the nine parameters are handled (e.g., whether they are validated, used, or ignored). The parameter descriptions in the schema suggest checks, but the tool description itself is silent on this, leaving ambiguity about side effects and processing.

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, which could be seen as concise, but it omits critical information. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The single sentence does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the template looks like, how parameters affect the result, or what the return value contains. The 'Prompt discarded' line is ambiguous and fails to address the tool's overall behavior. An agent cannot reliably 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%, so each parameter is documented. The tool description adds no meaning beyond that, merely stating the prompt is discarded. It does not clarify whether parameters are used or ignored, which would be valuable context. Thus, it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not exceed 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 specific action ('Return a three-step thinking template') and a resource, but it does not elaborate on what the template contains or how it relates to the tool's name. It is clear enough to infer the tool's basic purpose but lacks detail to distinguish it from other template-like tools.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The description only states what it does, not when it is 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output (current time) without mentioning behaviors like handling of invalid timezone names, whether network access is required, or side effects. The presence of many seemingly irrelevant parameters (e.g., 'ref', 'url', 'json') is unexplained, and the description does not clarify that only the 'zone' parameter is used.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters. It lacks essential details about which parameters matter and how the tool behaves. The brevity is not effective because it omits crucial guidance.

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, many of which appear irrelevant), the absence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke the tool correctly, what output to expect, or how to handle edge cases. An agent would struggle to use this tool without additional context.

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%, meaning each parameter has its own description, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it does not highlight that 'zone' is the primary parameter or clarify why other parameters exist. Since the schema already documents each field, the tool description provides no additional semantic 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 the core function: 'Current time in a named IANA timezone.' This is a clear verb-resource pair, and it implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like utc-time (which likely gives UTC) and iana-zones (which lists zones). However, it does not explicitly mention which parameter to use, leaving the agent to infer that 'zone' is the relevant one.

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 such as utc-time or iana-zones. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. The intended use is implied but not stated, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output, without mentioning the 9 parameters, their effects (mostly discarded), or the return format. The tool appears to accept many parameters but the description gives no hint of any side behavior, leaving the agent blind.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than good conciseness. It provides no value beyond the name and doesn't earn its place given the tool's complexity (9 params). A single phrase is insufficient for such a parameter-rich tool.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the parameters, the return value, or when to use the tool. 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema itself provides detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the agent can understand them without the tool description. The description does not need 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 'Current UTC timestamp' essentially restates the tool name. It clarifies that it returns the current time in UTC, but it doesn't add any distinguishing information about how this differs from sibling tools like timezone or iana-zones. The purpose is clear but minimal.

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. The agent must infer that it's for getting the current UTC time, but there is no explicit instruction or comparison to siblings, which is a significant gap.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions that the body is discarded, but fails to state what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error), whether it throws exceptions, or any side effects. The behavior is 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 concise (two short sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, and the second sentence about discarding the body adds little value without clarity on what 'body' means.

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 output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no information about how to call it, which parameter holds the JSON, what the return value is, or any edge cases. This is grossly insufficient 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and actually introduces confusion by referring to a 'body' that does not exist as a parameter, but since the schema is complete, the baseline holds.

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

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

The description states a clear action (check validity) and a resource (body), but the term 'body' is vague and doesn't match the actual 'json' parameter. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'domain-shape' or 'file-path-ok' that also validate formats, so it lacks specificity.

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, exclusions, or selection criteria. The description is a single sentence with no usage hints.

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 are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the core action and says nothing about side effects, safety, rate limits, or how parameters other than 'city' are handled. The schema hints that many parameters are 'discarded' after checks, but the description does not reveal this, leaving the agent unaware of validation or discard behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters. It front-loads the purpose but omits crucial context about parameter usage and tool behavior. This is not conciseness but under-specification, as the description fails to earn its place by providing necessary guidance.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must be self-sufficient. It only mentions the city and temperature, leaving out the return format, error handling, and the role of the other eight parameters. The tool's complexity is high (9 parameters) and the description does not explain which parameters are relevant or how they are used. This is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The schema already provides meaning, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only mentions 'city' indirectly without naming it. However, the schema itself clearly explains each parameter, including that 'city' is for a weather hint and others are discarded. The description does not compensate for any gaps, so a 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 purpose: 'Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo.' It clearly identifies the action (get current temperature) and the resource (city, via Open-Meteo). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like geo-hint or timezone, and the presence of nine unrelated parameters in the schema creates ambiguity about the actual scope. It is clear enough for a weather lookup but not fully distinct from other 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?

The description implies usage when one needs the current temperature for a city, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. There is no mention of competing tools or conditions that would route to another sibling. The intended use is implied but not stated, leaving the agent to infer the 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses that it fetches a URL, returns status and content type, and discards the body. It implies the URL is public (no auth). However, it does not mention error handling, redirects, timeouts, or any side effects. This is minimal coverage.

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, highly concise and front-loaded with the core function. It wastes no words and immediately states what the tool does.

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. The description mentions 'public URL' but does not map that to any specific parameter. It is unclear which parameter to use and how the other parameters relate. The description is too sparse to guide an agent on how to invoke this tool correctly among many parameters and siblings.

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 9 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information. For example, it doesn't clarify which parameter is the 'URL' mentioned in the description. So it provides no added value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a clear verb ('fetch') and resource ('public URL'), and specifies the output as 'HTTP status and content type'. It also notes 'Body discarded', which is a distinguishing behavior. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch-status' which likely does something similar, so the purpose is clear but not 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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool names. The agent receives no guidance on selecting this tool among the many 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?

There are no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that a 'title' is discarded after the call, which is a minor detail about input handling, not about side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The description does not disclose how the tool determines existence or what it returns.

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), which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters. It does not front-load essential information such as which parameter is the title or how to invoke it. The brevity is not effective conciseness but rather a lack of necessary 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 the tool has nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to provide the title, what constitutes a valid call, or what the response will be. The description fails to bridge the gap between its stated purpose and the actual 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%, but the description adds no meaning to any parameter. It does not identify which of the nine parameters is the title to check, and the schema descriptions for each parameter are unrelated to Wikipedia (e.g., 'city' for weather, 'feed' for RSS). The disconnect makes the tool unusable without further clarification.

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 Wikipedia title exists'), but it does not indicate which parameter supplies the title. The input schema contains nine unrelated parameters (e.g., 'city', 'feed', 'host') with no 'title' field, so an agent cannot map the description to the schema. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser-url-ok' 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, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description gives no context for selecting it over the many sibling tools.

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