America/New_York clock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the behavioral burden. 'Page content is not stored' is a useful storage/privacy disclosure, but nothing is said about fetch behavior, error handling, rate limits, or what side effects (if any) occur when json or zone are supplied.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and no wasted words. The privacy note earns its place, though the overall terseness sacrifices coverage of the tool's full parameter 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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, and the description explains only one of four parameters. An agent cannot tell what the tool returns for host-only or zone-only invocations, nor how the json and zone parameters interact with the URL-citation purpose.

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 addresses only the url parameter; the json and zone parameters appear disjoint from the stated purpose, and the agent is left guessing whether they act as alternative modes, filters, or unrelated validations.

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

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

States a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource ('a URL') and concrete outputs (host, scheme, HTTP status). However, the json and zone parameters suggest the tool has additional capabilities or modes that the description does not acknowledge, so the stated scope is incomplete.

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. Sibling tools like normalize-url and validate-json likely overlap with this tool's URL and JSON behaviors, but the description offers no 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds one concrete behavioral claim — 'No identifiers are retained' — which signals a stateless, privacy-preserving operation, and 'Show' implies read-only. However, it never states whether the tool makes external calls, how it handles invalid input, or what side effects (if any) exist, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.

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, both of which earn their place: the first states the operation, the second states the privacy behavior. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though the brevity contributes to the 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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. The agent is not told what classification output to expect, how the parameters map to the classification, or when this tool is appropriate, so a caller cannot reliably invoke or interpret the result.

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 url, host, json, and zone. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters are used, which one is required for the classification, or what formats 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 uses a clear verb ('Show') and names a resource ('how this request is classified'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'classified' is never defined — the agent is not told what classification scheme or categories are involved, and nothing distinguishes this from sibling tools like citation or validate-json. This is a vague purpose rather than a precise 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 given about when to invoke this tool instead of a sibling. The description names no alternative tools, no conditions, and no exclusions, and the four optional parameters (url, host, json, zone) leave the intended input context ambiguous.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does clarify that no WHOIS/ownership data is returned, which is useful, but it does not disclose which input parameter (host vs url) is used, what the return value looks like, or how invalid hostnames are handled. The presence of irrelevant json and zone params is also left unexplained.

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

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

The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise without being a tautology, though it could sacrifice some brevity to include parameter 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 four optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no explicit sibling context, the description is too thin. An agent cannot reliably know whether to pass 'host' or 'url', what the returned labels look like, or whether other parameters are ignored. This is a significant completeness gap for a moderately complex 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's word 'hostname' maps plausibly to the existing 'host' parameter, but it adds no semantics for the url, json, or zone parameters and does not clarify which fields are relevant to this specific tool.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Split') and resource ('hostname into labels'), and the 'without WHOIS or ownership data' clause distinguishes it from enrichment tools. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly or describe the output shape, which keeps it from a 5.

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

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

The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies the tool is for pure hostname parsing rather than enrichment, but no explicit alternatives or conditions are given. It is not misleading, but the guidance is only 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: no read-only status, side effects, network behavior, or response semantics. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at usage but does not describe the tool's 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, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete; it reads as a fragment lacking a verb. The six words do not earn their place because they omit essential action and parameter 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 four optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no required inputs, this description is far too minimal to allow correct invocation. It does not explain what input is expected, what the tool returns, or how the parameters relate to the stated purpose.

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 even without parameter details in the description. The description's mention of timezone names relates loosely to the `zone` parameter but adds no meaning for `url`, `host`, or `json`.

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

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

The description identifies a resource ('common IANA timezone names for clock calls') but lacks a verb or explicit action, so it is unclear whether the tool returns a list, validates a zone, or looks up a name. It also does not differentiate the tool from siblings such as validate-json or citation.

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, and no context or exclusions are mentioned. The description is a noun phrase with no actionable direction for an agent deciding between 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies that the tool returns only group counts, not the full file, and implies a read-only fetch of a public resource. It does not mention potential issues like network errors, redirects, or handling of missing robots.txt, which would be useful for a network-fetching tool.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and result. It contains no fluff or redundant information.

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

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

The tool is a simple fetch-and-count operation, and the description covers the main intent. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details about error behavior, response format, or why parameters like 'json' and 'zone' are accepted, which leaves gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 parameters. However, the description adds only the context of 'public robots.txt' and 'group counts', which does not directly help map parameters like 'json' or 'zone' to the tool's purpose. The description does not compensate for the schema's generic parameter descriptions.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('public robots.txt'), and a clear scope ('return group counts only'). This distinguishes it from generic fetch tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for comparison.

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 inspecting robots.txt files and returning only group counts, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key behavior (query and fragment are dropped), but it does not disclose behavior for the json and zone parameters or the exact output format. This provides partial but not comprehensive transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action immediately and adds a key behavioral note in the second sentence.

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 ignores three of the four schema parameters, leaving the json and zone params unexplained as part of the tool's behavior. There is no output schema, so the return format is not fully specified. The description is complete only for the URL portion, not the whole 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the fact that the url parameter receives the input URL, which is already evident from 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 action ('Return origin, host, and path') on a specific resource ('a URL'), and clarifies that query and fragment are dropped. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate-json.

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

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

The purpose statement makes it clear when to use the tool: when you need a URL's origin, host, and path with query/fragment removed. The 'dropped' clause also implies you should not use this tool if you need to preserve query or fragment, but no explicit alternatives are named.

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, and it discloses nothing beyond a vague topic. It does not explain how the four input parameters are consumed, whether the tool mutates anything, what it returns, or what side effects exist — a serious gap for a tool with zero annotation 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 short sentence with no redundancy, and the main idea is front-loaded. But it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete — brevity here comes at the cost of omitting any operational detail.

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

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

With four parameters that appear unrelated to the description, no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of behavior or return value, the definition is far from complete. An agent has almost no information needed to invoke this tool correctly, and the topic/schema mismatch actively increases confusion.

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 already documented in the input schema, earning the baseline of 3. However, the description itself adds no value about the parameters and fails to bridge the gap between the 'status codes' framing and the url/host/json/zone inputs.

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

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

The description names a resource ('common HTTP status codes') but never states the operation — does it list, look up, explain, or map them? The resource also conflicts with the input schema, which contains url, host, json, and zone parameters that have no obvious relationship to HTTP status codes. This leaves an agent unable to tell what the tool actually does.

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 alternative, and no sibling tool is mentioned. Worse, the description is potentially misleading because the stated topic (HTTP status codes) does not align with the parameters, so an agent cannot infer appropriate usage conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (a read-only 'current time' lookup), but it does not state the return format, whether the time is a snapshot at call time, or what happens with an invalid timezone name.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. 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?

Fits small scope the description is adequate for selecting the tool, but with no output schema and no annotations it omits the expected return shape and leaves the unrelated url, host, and json parameters unexplained in context. An agent could call it but not know what result to expect.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description's 'IANA timezone' phrase matches the zone parameter but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: returns the current time for a named IANA timezone. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like validate, normalize, or status, though it does not explicitly name the siblings it is not.

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 a simple lookup use case but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that 'zone' is the relevant 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Current local time' and does not mention whether parameters are ignored, what output format is returned, or any relevant call-time 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately compact for what 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?

Given four optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and closely related sibling tools, this one-line description is incomplete. It does not clarify parameter relevance, output shape, or how this tool differs from the general timezone 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter explanation in the tool description. However, the parameter descriptions for url, host, and json appear unrelated to a timezone-time tool, and the description does nothing to clarify which parameters actually matter.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as returning the current local time for America/New_York, which is a specific resource and outcome. It is mildly redundant with the tool name and lacks an explicit verb, but an agent can still tell it apart from the generic timezone and utc-time siblings.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like timezone, utc-time, or iana-zones. The description implies it is for the America/New_York timezone, but it never states exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the output is the current UTC timestamp, but says nothing about return format, precision, or how the url, host, json, and zone parameters affect behavior — a significant opacity for what should be a trivial utility.

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?

At three words, the description is brief, but this is under-specification rather than earned conciseness. A tool carrying four unexplained parameters and sitting among eight siblings warrants more than a single noun phrase.

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

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

Given four optional parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It covers only the happy-path no-argument call and leaves agents unable to determine whether parameters matter, what the response shape is, or how this tool relates to its 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, which normally earns a baseline of 3. However, the parameter descriptions appear imported from other tools ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check') and are incoherent for a UTC-time tool; the description does not bridge this gap or clarify whether the parameters alter the result.

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 that the tool returns the current UTC timestamp, which conveys the resource and its temporal nature. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and borders on restating the name 'utc-time'; it also does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like timezone or tz-america-new-york.

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 siblings such as timezone, tz-america-new-york, or the URL-focused tools. The presence of a zone parameter in the schema hints at timezone-related functionality, but the description never explains when this tool is the right 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 behavioral disclosure. It does add a meaningful detail: the body is discarded. However, it omits the return format or error behavior, and there is no output schema, so the agent cannot know what result to expect beyond a pass/fail check.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, both of which earn their place: the primary purpose and a key side effect. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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

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

For a tool with no output schema and four schema properties, the description is underspecified. It doesn't state what result is returned for valid versus invalid JSON, which parameter to use, or that the other parameters are unused. This leaves the agent without enough information to invoke the tool confidently.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning; it refers to a 'body' without connecting it to the `json` parameter. The schema already documents each property, so the description neither compensates for nor detracts from 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 clearly states the tool checks whether a body is valid JSON and that the body is discarded. This distinguishes it from sibling operations that normalize, cite, or check status. However, 'body' is vague and doesn't explicitly map to the `json` parameter in the schema.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the listed siblings, such as normalize-url or status checks. It also doesn't clarify that the `json` parameter is the intended input and that the other schema properties (url, host, zone) are irrelevant for this tool.

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