America/Tegucigalpa clock

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that task text is discarded and that results include CLI setup and MCP hops, which hints at a read-only lookup. However, it does not state whether this operation invokes external services, has costs, or requires any special handling, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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

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

The description is compact: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then list returned artifacts. It earns a high score for efficiency, though the unexplained 'Monid' and the cryptic 'Task text discarded' prevent it from being perfect.

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 six heterogeneous parameters and no output schema, the description is not self-sufficient. It never explains which parameters are expected, whether any are required, how the parameters map to the returned CLI setup/skill file/MCP hops, or what an agent should do with the result. The schema descriptions hint at shape-check-like behavior, but the tool-level description does not tie them together.

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 meaning about the six parameters or how they relate to the returned gateway information; each parameter already has a per-field explanation in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)' and lists the expected returns (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). It is clear enough to distinguish this from the sibling shape/check tools, though 'Monid' is unexplained and no sibling is named 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?

The description implies a use case: use this when you need the Monid public pay-per-call gateway and its setup/skill/MCP-hop details. The note 'Task text discarded' is a useful negative guideline, but there is no when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as web-fetch or the various shape/status 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 of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that no browser is launched, but it does not explain whether a network request is made, whether the operation is read-only, or what the result indicates.

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

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

The description is appropriately concise, with two short sentences and the key negative behavior ('No browser is launched') front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it sacrifices necessary guidance 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 seven-property schema and the lack of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits which parameter to use, what the check returns, and how this differs from related URL tools, so an agent would have difficulty calling it correctly.

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

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

The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not identify which schema property is the URL to check. Although the schema describes each property, the 'url' description is generic ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') and misaligned with this tool's purpose, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' This clearly identifies the core function, and the addition of 'No browser is launched' helps signal lightweight behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like playwright-url-ok, web-fetch, or fetch-status.

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 such as normalize-url, playwright-url-ok, or fetch-status. It also does not mention which of the seven input properties should be supplied for this check.

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 add one useful trait—the expression is 'discarded'—but it does not state whether the call has side effects, requires authentication, returns a result, or fails on invalid expressions.

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

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

The description is short and front-loads the core action with no filler. However, the second sentence is ambiguous and the brevity is not backed by enough operational detail to make the structure genuinely helpful.

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

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

There is no output schema or annotation coverage, and the description omits the input mechanism, allowed arithmetic syntax, return format, and error behavior. Relative to the richer sibling tools, calc-eval is under-specified to the point of being unusable.

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 never maps its core concept, the arithmetic expression, to any of the seven schema properties (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path), and the schema lacks an expression parameter entirely. Because the description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for this missing input, an agent cannot construct a valid call.

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 concrete action, 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic', which distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which are arithmetic evaluators. However, its clarity is undermined by the ambiguous phrase 'Expression discarded' and by the fact that no schema parameter obviously carries an arithmetic expression.

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 calc-eval instead of a sibling tool, no conditions for use, and no mention of alternatives. The only usage signal is the one-sentence action, which implies arithmetic evaluation but does not state what input is expected or what kinds of expressions are valid.

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 discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful side-effect guarantee, but it does not state whether a network request is made, how errors or redirects are handled, or what exact output format 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the side-effect statement earns its place. This is an appropriately concise description.

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

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

The description is incomplete for a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema or annotations. It leaves ambiguity about which parameters are actually used, what response format to expect, and how it should be selected among the many sibling URL/status tools.

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

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

Parameter descriptions in the schema already cover 100% of the nine optional fields, so the baseline is met. The description adds some meaning for url by indicating the output fields, but it does not clarify how the other eight parameters relate to the URL-focused behavior.

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

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

The description names a concrete operation: return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. It is more specific than just saying 'citation' and points toward a lightweight URL inspection, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling status/URL tools or explain why it is called 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 given about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The non-storage note hints that it is not for content retrieval, but there is no explicit when/when-not condition or alternative routing.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful privacy guarantee ('No identifiers are retained') that aligns with the parameter descriptions, but it does not disclose other behaviors like network access, persistence, or side effects.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is stated first, and the privacy note follows, making it well-structured and appropriately concise.

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

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

Despite having multiple parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description does not explain what the classification result looks like, how parameters interact, or when this tool should be chosen. It is too sparse for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema descriptions cover all parameters with specific details (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check', 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'), so schema coverage is high. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics beyond a general no-retention statement.

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 ('Show') and a resource ('how this request is classified'), so an agent knows it produces a classification. However, it never defines what 'classified' means or what categories are returned, leaving the tool's purpose vague and hard to distinguish from sibling shape/classification 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as domain-shape, validate-json, or normalize-url. It gives no context about the intended input scenarios 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 the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is a hostname split without WHOIS or ownership lookups, implying a relatively safe, local parse. However, it does not mention return values, errors, or what happens with the other input 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?

A single focused sentence with no filler. The main action and the data-privacy qualifier are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the tool's 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?

Given a seven-parameter input schema, no output schema, and many sibling tools, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not clarify which parameter to pass, what the split labels look like, or why the other parameters exist, so an agent cannot confidently invoke 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?

The input schema already describes all seven parameters in reasonable detail, so the description does not need to repeat them. Still, the description gives no indication that only 'host' is the meaningful parameter while fields like ref, city, feed, json, and path are discarded or unrelated, creating potential 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'split a hostname into labels.' The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' narrows the scope and distinguishes it from data-lookup domain tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling 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 alternative tools such as web-fetch, normalize-url, or fetch-status. The description does not provide conditions, exclusions, or references to siblings, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name and one-line 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate that the tool uses HEAD (no body), targets public URLs, and returns only status. However, it omits important behavioral details such as redirect handling, error behavior, and the surprising fact that many accepted parameters are described as discarded or not accessed.

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 filler. The action and the output restriction are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not specify what the status return value looks like, which parameter to use for a HEAD request, or whether non-URL parameters are ever meaningful. An agent cannot confidently invoke the tool across the full schema based on 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 each parameter. The description adds only the 'public URL' scope and does not help an agent understand how the nine optional parameters interact with the HEAD operation. The schema must carry the semantic load.

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 core action: perform an HTTP HEAD request to a public URL and return only the status. This is specific and gives a concrete verb and resource. However, it does not explain how the other eight schema parameters relate to this action, so the purpose is only partially clear for the full 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'status only' weakly implies it is for lightweight checks, but sibling tools like browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, web-fetch, and status-catalog are not mentioned, leaving an agent without clear routing information.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavior: the URL path is discarded. However, it does not state whether the tool validates, normalizes, extracts components, or what it returns, leaving important behavioral context 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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and a key behavioral note with no filler. The sentence 'Parse a Figma file URL' is front-loaded and immediately scopes the 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a nine-parameter input schema with zero required parameters, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. It omits return semantics, explicit parameter mapping, and differentiation from related URL tools, so an agent must infer too much.

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 parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful semantic that the URL is a Figma file URL and that its path is ignored, but it does not explicitly tie this to the 'url' parameter or clarify how the other eight unrelated parameters should be handled.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Parse') and a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), making the tool's core purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape, which target different URL or key formats.

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 this tool is for parsing Figma file URLs, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives. In a large sibling list with normalize-url, browser-url-ok, and several shape tools, an agent gets only weak routing cues.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose a non-obvious trait (no disk access) and indicates the check is based on appearance rather than actual filesystem state. It does not explain what criteria make a path safe, how unsafe results are returned, or whether any other side effects can 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 is two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the key behavioral constraint follows immediately. 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?

Despite being a simple-looking tool, the schema exposes nine optional parameters and no output schema, so an agent needs more guidance about which parameter to use and what result to expect. The description only covers path and does not address return values or the meaning of 'safe,' making it incomplete for confident invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the path parameter. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that path is the focus, which does not exceed the 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 clear action and subject: check whether a path looks safe, with the boundary 'No disk access.' It aligns with the path parameter description 'File path to check' and stands apart from URL-focused siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from.

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 disk access' implies this is a lightweight syntactic check, which gives some context for when to use it. However, it does not state when to prefer this over alternative checker tools or when not to use it, leaving the usage guidance 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 present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only reveals that Open-Meteo is the underlying service, but says nothing about side effects, input handling, network dependencies, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The schema mentions that many inputs are discarded, but the description itself does not.

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

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

The description is short and front-loads the intended output, with no wasted words. However, it is an under-specified fragment rather than a structured tool explanation, and its brevity omits context that is essential given the large, heterogeneous input 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 an 8-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too incomplete. It fails to explain which input to provide, what output format to expect, when the tool is appropriate, or how it behaves—leaving an agent with almost no reliable 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?

All eight schema properties have descriptions, so the schema already carries most parameter semantics. The description adds only the vague notion of a 'place' but does not specify which parameter represents that place, leaving real ambiguity given fields like ref, feed, host, and 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 communicates the core idea—latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo—but it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a clear verb-driven action. It does not meaningfully distinguish geo-hint from siblings like weather-hint or timezone beyond the output type, especially since the input schema lists many unrelated fields.

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 alternatives like weather-hint, timezone, or normalize-url. No exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name and 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'parse' and never reveals that the other schema parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path) are ignored/discarded, nor what happens for invalid or non-GitHub URLs.

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 sentence, no filler, and the key action is front-loaded. It is concise without being padded.

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

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

Despite having 9 optional inputs and no output schema, the description does not state which parameters are actually used, whether any are required, or what the parsed result looks like. It is minimally viable but leaves important operational details unspecified.

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

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

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little by clarifying that `url` is the GitHub URL parsed for owner/repo, but it does not meaningfully explain the role of the remaining 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?

States the exact operation: extracting owner and repo from a GitHub URL. The 'GitHub URL' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like figma-url-shape and jira-key-shape.

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

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

The description embeds the trigger condition ('when you have a GitHub URL and want owner/repo') but gives no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions, so usage is only implied rather than fully specified.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a real behavioral trait: 'Titles discarded.' It also implies live retrieval via 'current,' but it does not describe the return value shape, failure modes, network behavior, or rate limiting, leaving the disclosure 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 or repetition. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional qualifier is separated into a second sentence that 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 tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description omits return format and parameter selection guidance. An agent cannot confidently determine whether to pass feed, url, host, or no parameter at all, making the description incomplete for reliable invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to re-explain each parameter. The phrase 'Titles discarded' aligns with the 'feed' parameter's description, providing a mild routing signal. Still, the description never states which of the nine optional parameters is the primary input, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' The second sentence, 'Titles discarded,' clarifies an important behavioral boundary. This is enough to distinguish the tool from generic fetching or counting siblings such as web-fetch or memory-key-count.

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 when to use the tool: when a numeric count of current Hacker News front-page stories is needed, and when titles are not needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance remains implicit rather than fully articulated.

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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it reveals nothing about side effects, return values, data handling, or output format. The only hint is 'for clock calls,' which is too vague to count as meaningful behavioral context.

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 is a fragmented phrase that omits critical details, and while it is front-loaded, there is no structure or substance to evaluate.

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

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

The tool has seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides almost no information to help an agent select or invoke the tool correctly. It fails to explain the parameters, expected inputs, return value, or relationship to sibling tools like timezone or utc-time.

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

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

The description does not explain any of the seven parameters, and the schema's parameter descriptions (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) appear completely unrelated to IANA timezone names. The schema descriptions are present but irrelevant to the tool's stated purpose, and the description fails to bridge the gap.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase, 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls,' with no verb or action. It doesn't state whether the tool returns, validates, or lists these names. It vaguely references 'clock calls' but doesn't specify what the tool does with the names, leaving the agent to guess.

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 sibling list includes timezone and utc-time, both potentially related, but the description offers no comparison, conditions, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine when iana-zones 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 behavioral burden. It accurately indicates a read-only 'fetch' action, limits the result to 'group counts only,' and notes the resource is 'public.' It does not disclose error behavior, redirects, rate limits, or what happens when no robots.txt is found, but the core behavior is minimally transparent.

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 words. It earns its place by stating the action and the output restriction, though it is terse enough that completeness suffers.

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 complex seven-parameter schema, no annotations, no output schema, and semantically mismatched parameter descriptions, the one-line description is grossly insufficient. The agent cannot determine which parameter to populate, what the output structure will be, 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?

The input schema lists seven parameters, but none is clearly tied to fetching a robots.txt file. 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' which is misleading, and unrelated parameters like 'city,' 'json,' and 'feed' are included without any indication of relevance. The description does not identify which parameter should supply the target URL or host, making correct invocation nearly impossible.

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 resource ('a public robots.txt') and a precise output ('return group counts only'), which is enough to distinguish it from generic siblings like web-fetch or fetch-status. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from an alternative tool, so it falls short of 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web-fetch or fetch-status. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or replacement tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does explicitly say 'Key discarded', which is a useful privacy-related trait, and 'Check' implies a non-mutating operation. However, it does not describe the return value, failure modes, or whether any external Jira call is made, so behavioral transparency is 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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence contributes something: one states the purpose, the other states an important behavioral trait. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to the broader incompleteness.

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 is a 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, yet the description only provides a one-line purpose and a discard note. It fails to explain what a valid Jira issue key shape is, which parameter to use, what the result looks like, or when to choose this tool over alternatives. This is far below what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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

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

The schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no meaningful mapping between the Jira key concept and any of the seven parameters. The params are described as git refs, URLs, city names, RSS feeds, hosts, JSON, and paths—none of which the description connects to a Jira issue key—so an agent cannot reliably pick the correct field.

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') and a specific resource ('Jira issue key shape'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, 'shape' is slightly vague about whether this is a pure validation or normalization, and the schema offers no obvious parameter for the Jira key, which dampens clarity.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling shape/validation tools, nor does it state what kind of input should be passed. The description never says 'Use this when you have a candidate Jira issue key to validate' or names an alternative to avoid, leaving the agent to infer 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the body is discarded, which is useful, but it omits network behavior, redirect handling, error semantics, and why the schema exposes many unrelated parameters. This is too little behavioral context for an unannotated 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 brief and front-loads the core behavior without filler. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, so its brevity is not fully appropriate to 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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify the return format beyond saying 'HTTP status', and it should explain which of the 9 optional parameters apply. It also lacks error or redirect behavior context. The description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably invoke the tool across its documented inputs.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter in detail. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not indicate which parameters are relevant to the stated purpose, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 that the body is discarded. This is specific enough to convey the main action, though it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, and the 9-parameter schema introduces unrelated properties such as city, feed, and zone.

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 choose this tool over siblings like browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or normalize-url. The description also does not clarify whether url, host, or feed is the intended input, leaving the usage 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Values discarded' is a meaningful behavioral trait that tells the agent parameter content is irrelevant, but it does not say whether keys are counted only at the top level, what the return value looks like, or whether any external access occurs.

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 every word earns its place. The core operation is front-loaded, and 'Values discarded' is a concise, high-value clarification with no redundancy.

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 under-specified. It omits the return format, how to map the 'JSON object' to the schema properties, and any practical example or boundary condition, leaving too much for the agent to infer.

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 that values are discarded, which is useful because the nine parameters have semantically meaningful descriptions in the schema, but it still does not clearly explain that the parameters themselves are the keys being counted.

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 a clear resource, 'a JSON object', while adding that values are discarded. This is distinct from the sibling validators and fetch tools, though it does not say whether the counted object is the tool's own arguments object or a separate JSON document.

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 validate-json or search-query-len. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisite conditions are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped, and only origin, host, and path are returned. However, it does not mention handling of invalid URLs, whether the operation is read-only, or any other side effects.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The main output is front-loaded, and the dropped components are stated immediately afterward.

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 confusing multi-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain how to handle multiple parameters, what return format to expect, or what happens when the URL is malformed or unsupported.

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 seven parameters, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds useful meaning about what normalization produces, but it does not clarify which parameter is the intended URL input or how the many discarded parameters relate to the tool's purpose.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('a URL') plus the exact output components: origin, host, and path. It is clear enough to distinguish this tool from URL validation or shape-checking siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 sibling tools like browser-url-ok, figma-url-shape, or domain-shape. The description implies that it is for extracting URL components, but it never states when-not-to-use or mentions alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses one important behavior—no browser launch—but it doesn't say whether a network request is made, how redirects/errors are handled, or what 'can be opened' actually returns. Partial disclosure only.

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 wasted words; the main action is front-loaded. The weakness is under-specification, not verbosity, so the conciseness itself is solid.

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 and no output schema, this is too thin. The return value/format, the role of the extra parameters, and error/precondition behavior are all absent, so an agent has little guidance beyond the obvious url argument.

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 describes every parameter, the tool description doesn't explain how the nine unrelated-looking params relate to the URL-openability check. The url param's schema description ('normalize or cite') conflicts with the tool's stated purpose, and discarded-parameter hints add 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 clearly states the action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a useful qualifier ('No browser is launched') that separates it from browser-based siblings like browser-url-ok. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is given, but 'No browser is launched' implies a lightweight check for cases where browser automation is not desired. This is enough for a basic implied usage signal, though it doesn't compare against fetch-status or web-fetch.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. Adding 'Query discarded' does communicate non-retention, which is useful. However, it says nothing about side effects, read-only behavior, or what happens with the related schema fields, so the transparency is only partial.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and the discard behavior in a compact second sentence. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify which parameter to count, what the return value is, or how this tool fits into a larger workflow, leaving important context for an agent to guess.

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% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and it fails to explain which parameter corresponds to the 'search query' mentioned in the description.

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

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

The description states a clear operation, 'Count characters in a search query', but 'search query' does not map to any property in the input schema. The schema lists ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path, so it is ambiguous which value is the query to be counted. It also does not differentiate the tool from similar shape/validation 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate-json, domain-shape, or memory-key-count. The description gives no contextual conditions or exclusions, leaving tool selection to inference.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the catalog is 'short' and 'common,' with no information about side effects, return format, pagination, or how the eight input parameters are handled.

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 the brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single noun phrase fails to carry the operational information an agent needs, so the sentence does not 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?

With eight unrelated-looking parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several potentially overlapping sibling tools, this description is far too incomplete. An agent cannot reliably know which input to provide or 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all eight parameters, so the baseline is 3 despite the description offering no parameter guidance. However, the description does not clarify how parameters like city, feed, or path relate to HTTP status codes, leaving meaningful ambiguity that the schema alone does not resolve.

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,' that essentially restates the tool name without an explicit verb or action. It does not explain what an agent can do with this tool or how it differs from overlapping siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as fetch-status and validate-json overlap conceptually, but the description never mentions them or provides selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that the prompt is discarded, which is useful, but it leaves unclear what the three-step template actually contains and whether the provided parameters influence 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?

Two short sentences convey the core idea with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded and the dismissive note is efficiently brief.

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

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

For a tool with seven varied parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what a three-step thinking template looks like, which parameters matter, or why this tool exists alongside many similar-looking utilities.

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 each parameter, so schema coverage is effectively high. The description adds nothing about how parameters relate to the returned template, and 'Prompt discarded' suggests they may be irrelevant, which is 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 names a concrete action and output: it returns a three-step thinking template. It is not a tautology, though it does not explain how this tool compares to the many sibling context/validation tools.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use think-steps versus any of its siblings. The only hint, 'Prompt discarded,' implies the input prompt is not processed, but no alternative or precondition is given.

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 indicates the output concept and weakly implies a read operation, but it does not explain error behavior, side effects, or how the unrelated schema parameters such as ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path are handled.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified: it omits essential input mapping and usage guidance, so the brevity is not fully appropriate 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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too incomplete. It does not indicate which parameter carries the timezone or how to treat the unrelated parameters, making reliable invocation impossible from the provided definition.

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 0%, and the visible schema contains no parameter that accepts an IANA timezone. The phrase 'named IANA timezone' adds the expected value type, but the description does not map it to any property, so the agent cannot determine what argument to supply.

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: get the current time for a named IANA timezone. This is clear and reasonably distinct from generic time utilities, though it does not explicitly contrast with the utc-time or iana-zones 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?

The description implies when to use the tool—when a current time in an IANA timezone is needed—but provides no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives. It does not mention utc-time or iana-zones, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only states the output. It does not disclose that all input parameters are discarded, does not describe the timestamp format, and does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect free.

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 focused sentence with no filler, and the core output is front-loaded. It is concise to the point of being under-specified, but that is more a completeness concern than a conciseness one.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and a closely related sibling named timezone, one phrase is insufficient. It omits the return format, the fact that arguments are unnecessary and ignored, and any guidance on how this differs from other time-related tools.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description, mostly noting that the value is discarded after a shape check. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool's output—the current UTC timestamp—so an agent can infer what it does. It lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', so it falls just short of a top score.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as timezone or iana-zones, and there is no mention of the fact that all nine parameters are optional and effectively ignored. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and the one-line description.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that 'The body is discarded,' which is a useful behavioral trait, but it does not indicate return values, behavior on invalid JSON, or whether other schema parameters affect the 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 exactly two short sentences: one declares the operation and one declares the side effect. There is no fluff, and the key action is front-loaded.

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

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

The input schema contains many seemingly unrelated parameters (url, city, feed, host, path) with their own discard annotations, but the description does not explain which parameter is 'the body' or why the other parameters exist. With no output schema and no annotations, this ambiguity is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is effectively 100%, with each parameter documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond referring to 'a body,' so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides the necessary semantics.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This is immediately distinct from sibling shape validators like domain-shape or figma-url-shape, and the discard note adds a clear side effect.

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 mention of alternatives among the many shape-check sibling tools. The purpose implies usage for JSON validation, but the description leaves the agent to infer selection criteria.

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, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what data it returns, or if it has side effects. It implies a safe lookup, but the behavior is not explicitly stated.

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, but it omits necessary context about the parameter set. It is not overly verbose, yet the brevity does not compensate for the missing explanation of the unrelated 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 complexity and apparent mismatch of the nine parameters, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain why 'ref', 'url', 'feed', etc. are present, nor does it clarify the intended usage, making the tool confusing and incomplete for an agent.

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

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

While schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic and unrelated to the declared weather purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' and 'Search text; discarded after the length check'). The description only mentions 'city', leaving the other eight parameters unexplained and their roles unclear.

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

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

The description states 'Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo', which clearly identifies a retrieval action for weather data. However, the broad input schema naming many unrelated parameters (ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) introduces ambiguity about the tool's actual scope.

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

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

The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks guidance on the intended invocation context or how to select this among the 24 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 burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavior: the response body is discarded, so callers should not expect page content. It does not mention redirect handling, timeouts, or error behavior, but for a simple fetch check the stated behavior is useful.

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 sentences with no filler; the discard behavior is front-loaded. It is appropriately terse for a simple fetch tool, though slightly too thin to fully serve a 9-parameter schema, so it is not a 5.

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 annotations, and no output schema, two sentences are not enough. The description does not explain how to provide the URL, what the response looks like beyond status/content type, or how the unrelated parameters (city, query, json, etc.) relate to this tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter; the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema descriptions are themselves odd relative to web-fetch (e.g., url is 'to normalize or cite'), but per the high-coverage baseline this dimension stays at 3.

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

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

The description states a specific operation: return HTTP status and content type for a public URL, and it adds 'body discarded' to clarify scope. It is distinct from obvious URL tools like normalize-url, though it does not explicitly differentiate from fetch-status. The otherwise-clear purpose is weakened by an input schema that lists many unrelated optional properties (city, query, zone, etc.).

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 qualifier 'public URL' implies the context (no auth/private targets) and the stated output implies when an agent needs status/content-type. There is, however, no explicit when-to-use/alternative guidance relative to the many sibling fetch/URL tools (fetch-status, browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok).

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It only says the title is 'discarded after the call,' hinting at no retention, but it does not state whether the check is read-only, whether it accesses the network, or what the result actually indicates.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the primary operation, requiring only two sentences. The second sentence is somewhat tangential for invocation but does not add meaningful bloat.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from sufficient. The missing title parameter and absent return/error semantics leave an agent unable to call 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?

The schema documents seven parameters, but the description's core input, a 'title', has no corresponding schema property. The listed parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) are all described as being discarded, so the description does not help an agent map the intended Wikipedia title to an actual argument.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists'), which is clear and not tautological. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling shape-check tools, though the Wikipedia-title focus provides some 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?

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names alternatives among the siblings. An agent receives no context for choosing this tool over tools like normalize-url, fetch-status, or validate-json.

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