America/Mendoza clock

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

The description discloses that the call returns CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, and remote MCP hops, and that task text is discarded. With no annotations present, this provides some behavioral insight, but it does not explain whether inputs are validated, forwarded, stored, or whether authorization is required.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded: purpose first, return list second, and a one-sentence caveat last. There is no filler. The cryptic term 'Monid' is a clarity issue, not a conciseness issue.

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

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

With no output schema and seven optional-looking parameters, the description does not tell an agent which arguments to supply, what a successful result looks like beyond a vague list, or when to invoke this instead of a sibling tool. It leaves too much to inference.

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

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

The input schema already documents all seven parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds the note that task text is discarded but does not clarify how any of the parameters relate to the lookup behavior. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Find') on a specific resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)') and lists the types of returned artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). It is mostly clear, though 'Monid' is unexplained and the tool is not explicitly differentiated from sibling tools like web-fetch 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of which inputs are needed for a valid lookup. 'Task text discarded' is a behavior note rather than a usage guideline.

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

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

The only disclosed behavioral trait is that no browser is launched, which is useful. With no annotations present, the description must also clarify whether a network request is made, what 'can be opened' means, and what side effects or return values occur—none of which are addressed.

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 one-sentence description is front-loaded, direct, and free of filler. In isolation it is appropriately concise for a simple check tool, though the extreme brevity leaves important behavioral details unstated.

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?

This tool has no annotations, no output schema, seven parameters, and many siblings in the same domain. The description does not explain return values, success/error behavior, which parameters are relevant, or how it differs from similar tools, making it incomplete for reliable agent selection and invocation.

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

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

The schema provides high coverage with per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3, but the description does not help reconcile the stated URL-focused purpose with the many unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path). The property descriptions themselves are inconsistent with the tool description, and the description adds no parameter-level clarity.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a distinguishing behavioral note ('No browser is launched'). However, 'can be opened' is ambiguous—it could mean syntactic validity, network reachability, or browser compatibility—and the description does not clarify which check is performed or how it relates to the broader 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 alternatives such as playwright-url-ok, normalize-url, or fetch-status. The 'No browser is launched' note implies a lightweight check, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. The phrase 'Expression discarded' conveys that the expression input is not retained, but the schema offers no place for an expression, and the actual parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) are said to be 'discarded after' checks. This minimal transparency does not clarify side effects, security, or output behavior, leaving major gaps.

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

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

The description is only two short sentences, which is concise and front-loads the action. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices essential information, and the structure provides no connection to the actual schema fields. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified for a tool with 15 input 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?

Given the absence of annotations, no output schema, and a large input schema that conflicts with the description, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The description fails to explain how to provide the arithmetic expression, what the input parameters are for, or what to expect after calling the tool.

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

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

The description does not map any input parameter to the promised arithmetic expression. The schema's parameter descriptions are individually clear but describe unrelated validation tasks (e.g., 'Git ref name... discarded after the shape check', 'JSON text to validate'). The description adds zero meaning to these parameters and instead implies an expression parameter that does not exist, actively misleading parameter selection.

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

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

The description mentions a specific action ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic') but the input schema contains 15 properties (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, etc.) that are unrelated to arithmetic and instead describe various validation/normalization checks. This mismatch makes the tool's actual purpose confusing and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like validate-json or normalize-url. It is not a pure tautology, but it is misleading.

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. It only says 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic' and 'Expression discarded,' which does not explain the context of use or any alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical 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 supplied, the description carries most of the behavioral burden, and it does usefully disclose that a HEAD request is made and that only the status is returned. It does not explain what happens with the non-URL inputs in the schema (city, json, path) or whether they are discarded, so some behavioral context remains implicit.

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

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

One direct sentence that front-loads the verb (HEAD), target (public URL), and result (status only). There is no filler or redundant material.

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 plus the detailed schema is minimally workable for a simple HEAD-status operation. However, with no output schema, no annotations, no required-field specification, and no explanation of the many optional parameters or sibling alternatives, an agent is left to infer some important call-shape details.

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?

Every parameter in the schema has its own description, so schema coverage is high and the baseline applies. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail and, by focusing only on URL, may even obscure the fact that many non-URL parameters are accepted.

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

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

The description states a concrete operation: HEAD a public URL and return only the status, so the core action and output are clear. It does not explain how this differs from sibling URL/status tools such as browser-url-ok or web-fetch, and the schema's extra fields (city, json, path) go beyond a single public 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The HEAD method implicitly implies a lightweight status check, but an agent must infer that rather than being told when to prefer it over sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does offer one trait: 'Path discarded' indicates some input/output component is ignored. It does not describe return values, error behavior, or side effects, but a parse operation can reasonably be inferred as non-mutating. The minimal disclosure keeps this at a middling score.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler or repeated schema content. The two short sentences are easy to scan; though 'Path discarded' is ambiguous, the structural economy is a strength.

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 an agent, this description is incomplete: no output schema exists, so the return format must be described; it isn't. The 9-parameter schema is not explained, and there is no indication what 'shape' means or what happens with an invalid Figma URL. A tool this small can be fully specified in a sentence or two, and this does not achieve that.

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 some value by identifying the URL parameter as a Figma file URL, which the schema's generic 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' does not. However, it does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters are actually needed or how the unrelated params (ref, city, feed, etc.) relate to the operation.

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

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

States a specific action – parse a Figma file URL – which is a clear verb+resource. The phrase 'Path discarded' adds one behavioral detail, though the exact referent (URL path vs. path parameter) is ambiguous. It is not tautological and the Figma resource helps separate it from generic URL 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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions; the only implied use case is 'when you have a Figma file URL to parse'.

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 visible, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does disclose the important trait 'No disk access.' However, it does not state the return shape, whether any input is rejected, or whether other side effects occur, so transparency is only partial.

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

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

Two short sentences with no filler; the core purpose and key constraint are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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

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

The schema exposes seven disparate input properties, but the description only mentions paths. An agent has no way to know which property to use for a given task or how the tool behaves for url, json, feed, etc. There is also no output schema or return information, so the description is incomplete for a tool with this much surface area.

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

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

All seven input parameters are described in the schema itself, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level nuance and, in fact, its singular focus on 'a path' conflicts with the schema's many unrelated properties.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a path'), and adds a useful boundary with 'No disk access'. However, 'safe' is vague and the description does not differentiate itself from sibling shape-checking tools beyond the word 'path'.

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

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

The phrase 'No disk access' implies this is a static, off-line path check, so an agent can infer a common use case. But there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools like browser-url-ok or wiki-title-ok, and no mention of 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 available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions Open-Meteo and does not explain that it makes an external network call, how errors or unknown places are handled, whether the operation is safe/read-only, or what output shape to expect.

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 communicates the core function in eight words and earns its place.

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

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the input schema is unusually broad with seven unrelated-looking fields. A one-line description does not tell an agent which parameter supplies the place or what the response looks like, so it is not fully actionable without additional inference.

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

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

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, and it never maps 'a place' to the `city` parameter, but it does not contradict the schema either.

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 that the tool resolves a place to latitude and longitude using Open-Meteo. It is specific enough to distinguish this from siblings like weather-hint, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'look up'.

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 it should be used when geographic coordinates for a place are needed, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions. It provides clear context but no comparison with sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a parse operation and mentions discarded parameters, but does not clarify return behavior or whether any side effects occur.

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 itself is a single concise sentence, but the input schema includes many unrelated parameters, which undermines overall structural clarity.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse: it does not specify which parameter is actually used, what the return value looks like, or how errors are handled.

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

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

Although every parameter has a description, most descriptions are irrelevant to parsing a GitHub URL and appear copied from other tools. The 'url' description says 'normalize or cite' rather than 'parse owner and repo,' making parameter semantics 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 clearly states the tool parses owner and repo from a GitHub URL, which is specific and distinct from sibling URL-shape 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 for GitHub URLs but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like normalize-url or figma-url-shape.

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

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

The description discloses a behavioral detail beyond its name: titles are discarded. With no annotations present, this is useful, but it stops short of describing the return value, network fetch behavior, or failure modes, so the description only partially carries the transparency burden.

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

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

The description is only two short sentences and both earn their place: the first states the operation and the second adds a behavioral qualifier. There is no filler or repetition.

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, no annotations, and 9 optional parameters, the description leaves critical context unstated: which parameters are used, whether any input is required, what a successful response looks like, and whether the tool fetches live Hacker News data. A one-line invocation hint would make it materially more complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning and does not identify which of the 9 optional parameters is relevant, but it also does not contradict the schema. The 'Titles discarded' wording echoes the feed parameter description, offering only a weak implicit link.

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 and resource: count current Hacker News front-page stories. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from generic URL or shape-check siblings, though the phrase 'Titles discarded' adds a little confusion about whether titles are inputs or outputs.

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 instead of a sibling, no mention of required inputs, and no note that a Hacker News feed URL is expected. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call it with zero arguments or with the feed parameter.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does say 'Key discarded,' which hints at safe, non-persistent behavior, but it doesn't disclose return values, validation semantics, or whether any parameter triggers network access. This is insufficient 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded. The terseness is a slight weakness given a 9-parameter schema and no output schema, but it is structurally clean.

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, an agent cannot tell which input to use, what the check returns, or how to distinguish this from sibling shape validators. The core question—where does the Jira key go?—is left unanswered.

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 extra parameter semantics and, critically, never maps the Jira key concept to a specific field like `ref`. It neither helps nor hurts 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?

"Check a Jira issue key shape" is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that distinguishes this from sibling shape-checkers like github-repo-shape or wiki-title-ok. However, the description comes close to a tautology with the tool name and never states which of the 9 schema parameters carries the Jira key.

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 sibling shape-checking tools. The description also doesn't identify which input parameter to populate or any exclusions. Intended use is only implied by the tool name and brief phrase.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose two key traits: it returns an HTTP status and discards the body. It does not mention redirect handling, timeouts, rate limits, or what happens with non-URL parameters, but for a lightweight hint-style check the disclosed behavior is meaningful.

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

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

The description is exactly two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: first the core function, then the body-discard behavior. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes the key information immediately visible.

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 eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence about HTTP status and discarded body is not enough for an agent to invoke this correctly. It does not clarify the return format, which parameters are required versus optional, or how the tool differs from the many URL/status siblings, so the description is incomplete for the complexity of 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?

All eight parameters have descriptions in the schema, so schema_description_coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter guidance beyond mentioning the documentation URL, leaving the relation between the URL, ref, city, feed, host, json, and path fields unexplained.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns the HTTP status for a public library docs URL and explicitly notes that the body is discarded, giving a concrete verb-resource-outcome mapping. It does not, however, differentiate this from sibling tools like fetch-status or web-fetch, and the input schema contains many unrelated-looking parameters that the description ignores.

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 the tool is for cases where you only need the HTTP status and not the response body, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool or alternative is named, so an agent must infer the boundary from the one-sentence description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait: 'Values discarded', indicating input values are ignored and not persisted. However, it does not describe the return type, whether only top-level keys are counted, or any error behavior, so coverage is only partial.

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

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

Two short sentences with no filler, front-loading the action and target. Both sentences earn their place: the first states what the tool does, the second states a key behavioral constraint. Conciseness is excellent even though completeness suffers elsewhere.

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

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

With nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation. The description never explains which parameter should carry the JSON object, whether the object is the tool-call argument itself, or why all parameters are optional and rejected if unknown. An agent is left unsure whether to pass `json`, or any subset of the other keys, to obtain the count.

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 already documents all nine parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The top-level statement 'Values discarded' adds useful global parameter semantics: it tells the agent that the actual values supplied for fields like url, city, zone, and query are irrelevant, and only the presence of keys matters. This is not stated consistently for every parameter in 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 names a specific operation ('Count keys') and resource ('a JSON object'), and 'Values discarded' clarifies that values do not affect the result. It is clear enough on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as validate-json or search-query-len, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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

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

No guidance is given about when this tool should be used versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The only usage signal is implicit in the name and the verb, which is not enough for an agent deciding between similar-looking utilities.

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 key trait that no browser is launched, which is useful. However, with no annotations, it does not explain what the tool actually does instead (e.g., HTTP request), what it returns, or whether external network access is needed. This leaves the agent guessing about the underlying 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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and the key differentiator with no waste. The main action is front-loaded, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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

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

The description does not state the return type or what 'ok' means, and there is no output schema to fill the gap. It also fails to clarify which of the nine loosely-related parameters are actually used, leaving an agent uncertain about how to call the tool correctly. This is incomplete given the large parameter set and the absence of structured behavioral metadata.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters already have individual descriptions, making 3 the baseline. The tool description adds no guidance on which parameters matter most or how they relate to the URL check, so it does not improve on 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 action and target: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' The additional clause 'No browser is launched' differentiates it from the sibling browser-url-ok, so an agent can tell which tool to pick.

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 'No browser is launched' hint implies a lightweight alternative to browser-based checks, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok or web-fetch. No exclusions or conditions are given, so usage context is only implied.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the query is discarded, which is useful, but it does not describe the return value, counting semantics, permissions, or what happens with the eight unrelated schema inputs. Disclosure is too shallow.

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 modestly short and front-loaded, but it is too skeleton for a tool with eight optional parameters and no other context. Every sentence earns its place, yet important content is missing.

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 explain the input contract and the result. It neither names the query parameter nor specifies what the caller receives, making correct invocation effectively impossible.

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 gives descriptions for every property, so formal coverage is high, but none of those properties is a 'search query' field. The description adds no parameter mapping, so a caller cannot tell whether to pass ref, url, city, or any other optional string.

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

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

The description clearly states the operation: count characters in a search query, and adds the side-effect that the query is discarded. This is specific and not a tautology, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools. The practical clarity is undermined by the schema having no 'query' property.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternative tools. An agent cannot tell when this tool is preferable over the many sibling validation and length-checking tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is useful, but it does not explain whether parameters affect the returned template, whether there are side effects, or what 'discarded' means for the listed inputs. This is a significant transparency gap.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The main deliverable is front-loaded, and the 'Prompt discarded' note is relevant behavioral information. It is appropriately minimal for a tool of this apparent simplicity.

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, this description leaves too much unresolved: which parameters actually matter, what the three steps are, and why the prompt is discarded. The schema documents the parameters, but the description does not tie them to the tool's behavior or return value.

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 schema descriptions, giving close to full coverage, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The tool description itself adds little parameter-level value beyond repeating the idea that some inputs are discarded, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description names a specific deliverable—a three-step thinking template—and a concrete behavior: the prompt is discarded. This is clear about what the tool returns. It does not differentiate from siblings, but no sibling appears to share this exact template 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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus any sibling tool. It does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. The presence of many parameters hints at possible use cases, but the description leaves that entirely implicit.

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

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

Annotations already specify readOnlyHint=true and idempotenceHint=true, so the description's main behavioral contribution is showing that the tool fetches live data from Open-Meteo. It does not discuss units, error handling, or the fact that most schema params are discarded, but the annotation cover safety.

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?

A single sentence with no fluff. The core action and source are stated immediately and every word contributes.

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 a seven-parameter schema with many apparently unused fields, an empty output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It leaves unclear which parameters are required, what the response shape will be, and how to recover from missing or invalid city names.

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 low (20%), and the description only mentions 'city'. It does not clarify which of the seven input parameters should be populated, nor does it explain the role of the many unrelated parameters such as ref, url, feed, host, json, and path beyond what the schema itself says.

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 that the tool returns the current temperature for a city and identifies the data source as Open-Meteo. This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from generic hint tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like geo-hint or web-fetch. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'for a city', with no explicit conditions or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait—body is discarded—and the public-URL scope. However, it doesn't mention behaviors like error handling, redirects, timeouts, or the fact that the schema includes many parameters that appear to be discarded. This is moderate useful but incomplete.

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

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

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('HTTP status and content type') and the key caveat ('Body discarded'). Every word earns its place; it's appropriately concise for simple usage, though it omits necessary context about 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?

Given a schema with eight parameters and no output schema, the description's single sentence is insufficient. It doesn't clarify the relationship between the URL-fetch behavior and the other parameters, nor what a successful call returns besides 'status and content type'. An agent lacks enough context to invoke the tool reliably.

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 includes eight parameters, each with a description, but the tool description only talks about a public URL. It never explains whether the other parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path) are optional, mutually exclusive, or ignored by web-fetch. This leaves the agent unable to correctly construct a call and fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific function: fetch a public URL and return its HTTP status and content type, while discarding the body. This is a clear verb+resource pairing. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, but the core purpose is not vague or tautological.

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 contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or normalize-url. It neither states a preferred use case nor excludes siblings, so an agent can't make an informed choice from this definition 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Title discarded after the call' is a useful privacy/retention note. However, the description does not state whether the call is read-only, what happens for missing titles, whether a network request is made, or what output is returned.

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, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The purpose appears immediately and the discarded-title note is a valid second sentence. The brevity is helpful, but it omits the critical parameter mapping.

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

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

For a validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what result to expect and how to supply the title. Neither is present, and the mismatched input schema makes the tool incomplete 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?

The schema describes all eight parameters, but none is described as the Wikipedia title. The generic fields such as 'ref', 'city', 'feed', and 'json' appear unrelated to title existence checking, and the description does not map the title to any input. An agent cannot reliably know which parameter to populate.

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

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

The description is specific: it says the tool checks whether a Wikipedia title exists. This clearly differentiates the purpose from sibling tools like web-fetch or fetch-status. However, it does not explain what parameter carries the title, and the input schema has no 'title' field.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar shape-check and status tools available, an agent cannot tell from the description why wiki-title-ok is the correct choice. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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