America/Whitehorse clock

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

With no annotations to help, the description provides limited behavioral detail. It mentions outputs and that certain inputs are 'discarded', but it does not clarify side effects, read-only nature, failure modes, or why some parameters are ignored, making behavior opaque.

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

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

The description is short and to the point, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. Key terms are unexplained and the relationship between the listed outputs and the parameters is unclear, so the conciseness does not effectively aid understanding.

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

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

The tool has no output schema and the description provides only a vague list of return items. Critical details such as input-output mappings, side effects, error behavior, and the meaning of 'Monid' are absent, making the description incomplete for reliable use.

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 all nine parameters have schema descriptions, most are brief and some are confusing or self-contradictory (e.g., 'discarded after shape check', 'no disk access', 'discarded after length check'). The descriptions do not clarify how parameters like city, zone, or query relate to the tool's core purpose, adding little real semantic value.

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

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

The description states the tool finds a 'public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)' and lists return items, giving a general sense of purpose. However, 'Monid' is unexplained and the exact function remains ambiguous, making it only moderately clear.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any of the 26 sibling tools. The description does not mention conditions, alternatives, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without sufficient direction for selection.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one trait ('No browser is launched') but does not explain whether the check is a network request, HTTP status lookup, DNS resolution, or purely syntactic validation. It also fails to mention side effects or the discard behavior that appears in several parameter descriptions.

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

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

The description is only two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The negative clarification 'No browser is launched' earns its place. It is slightly terse given the multi-parameter schema, but this under-specification is better captured by the contextual completeness dimension, not conciseness.

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

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

For an agent to invoke the tool correctly, the description should clarify what 'can be opened' means, whether non-URL parameters are valid inputs, and what the check returns. No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention that the tool accepts host, feed, json, city, or path inputs. This is a significant completeness gap.

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 meaningful descriptions for every parameter, including side effects such as 'discarded after the shape check' and 'discarded after the call'. Schema description coverage is effectively 100%, so only the baseline of 3 applies; the tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('URL'), and the second sentence 'No browser is launched' distinguishes it from likely browser-based siblings like playwright-url-ok. However, 'can be opened' is ambiguous (syntactic validity vs. network reachability), and the input schema exposes many non-URL parameters (city, json, path, host) that the description ignores, which prevents fully bounding the tool's scope.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as playwright-url-ok, fetch-status, or normalize-url. The only clue is 'No browser is launched', which implies a lightweight headless check, but no sibling tool is named and no conditions are 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. 'Expression discarded' communicates that the input is not retained, but the description does not say whether the evaluation result is returned, how invalid expressions are handled, or whether the operation is purely local and 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and the second provides a behavioral note about the input. Every word earns its place, and the key information 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 is broad and heterogeneous, but the description only addresses the expression aspect and not the return value or error behavior. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what an agent can expect after evaluation; 'Expression discarded' leaves this ambiguous.

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

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

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, including 'expr' as an 'Arithmetic expression like a+b to evaluate.' The description adds little beyond that, though it does reinforce the intended expression format. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic.' This makes it obvious the tool performs arithmetic evaluation rather than a URL, JSON, or file check. It does not explicitly name or contrast siblings, but the arithmetic scope is distinctive enough among the sibling 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 usage context is implied: the tool should be used when arithmetic evaluation is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools like validate-json, normalize-url, 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful privacy note that page content is not stored, but omits request side effects, redirect behavior, response format, error handling, and any rate limits or authentication needs.

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, with the primary output front-loaded and a meaningful second sentence about non-storage. It is appropriately sized, though slightly terse given the tool's 9-parameter 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?

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only addresses URL-based citation. This leaves the agent without enough context to know which parameters matter, what the return shape looks like, or how failures behave.

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

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

The input schema already documents all 9 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not explain each one. The description adds little semantic value beyond signaling that URL is central, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the 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 states a specific output (host, scheme, HTTP status) for a URL, which is clear and actionable. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from overlapping siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, and the tool name 'citation' is unexplained.

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 the many sibling tools, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The phrase 'for a URL' provides minimal context, but no alternative routing or exclusion criteria are offered.

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

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

The description does add a meaningful privacy disclosure: 'No identifiers are retained.' This is valuable because several params in the schema are not explicitly stated as discarded. However, with no annotations present, the description still leaves unclear whether the tool performs external network requests or other side effects, so transparency is only partial.

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

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

Two clean sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a privacy guarantee. It is appropriately terse, though it is so compressed that it sacrifices useful 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 eight potential input parameters, many sibling tools, and no output schema, the description omits critical details: how to choose a parameter or whether they are mutually exclusive, what classification output to expect, and whether external resources are accessed. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool from the current description alone.

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

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

The input schema already documents each parameter individually, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by framing all these parameters as forms of a single 'request' to be classified and by stating that no identifiers are retained across all of them, including url, host, and path which lack discard notes in the schema.

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

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

The description states a verb and resource ('Show how this request is classified') but does not explain what 'compatibility' means or what the classification looks like. It is not tautological, but it is vague and does little to distinguish this tool from sibling shape-checking tools like domain-shape or validate-json.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any of its many siblings such as normalize-url, validate-json, or file-path-ok. No conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are provided, so the agent must guess which tool applies.

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 disclosure burden but only reveals the absence of WHOIS/ownership enrichment. It does not disclose that inputs like 'ref', 'city', 'json', and 'path' are discarded after checks, nor does it describe output behavior. The one-sentence description is too thin to establish trust for a tool that accepts such a heterogeneous set of parameters.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the core constraint (no WHOIS/ownership) is placed early. It earns its place but sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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

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

The tool exposes eight diverse parameters yet the description covers only one ('host'), and there is no output schema or annotations to fill the gap. An agent would not know this tool can also validate JSON, normalize URLs, or handle city/weather hints, making the description materially incomplete for correct invocation.

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

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

The input schema provides descriptive text for all eight parameters (100% coverage), including the fact that several are 'discarded' after the check. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies; it neither compensates for gaps nor introduces ambiguity.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Split' and a clear resource 'hostname', and the qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' distinguishes it from ownership-focused tools. It does not name sibling tools, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, and the schema's additional params suggest the description under-scopes the tool's capabilities.

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

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

The 'without WHOIS or ownership data' phrasing hints at when not to use the tool (when ownership data is needed), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or reference to alternatives such as github-repo-shape or figma-url-shape. An agent must infer applicability from the narrow hostname wording, ignoring the other accepted parameters.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself; it says HEAD and public URL, but omits redirects, timeouts, error behavior, rate limits, and what happens on non-2xx responses.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with a clear verb and object; no wasted words. It would need more structure to explain the parameter mismatch, but the text itself is efficient.

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

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

The description does not account for the nine-parameter schema, does not identify which parameter is the URL, and does not describe the response format or error conditions; for the actual schema complexity, it is highly incomplete.

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 is 100% covered by descriptions, but those descriptions are mismatched with the described operation; e.g., `url` is 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than a URL to HEAD, and the other eight params are unrelated and none are required, so an agent cannot infer which parameter(s) to pass.

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?

Description clearly states the operation (HEAD) and the resource (public URL) and limits output to status, which distinguishes it from web-fetch. However, the input schema introduces nine unrelated parameters, so the purpose is only clear if ignoring 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 explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives; it does not mention web-fetch, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url, and the sentence only implies a use case (status-only).

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only says 'Parse' and 'Path discarded.' It does not disclose what parsing produces, whether any network call occurs, how invalid URLs are handled, or that most of the input schema parameters appear unrelated and are likely ignored.

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 very short, with the main action front-loaded: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' The second sentence, 'Path discarded,' is terse but not necessarily redundant; however, its ambiguity slightly reduces clarity while keeping the text compact.

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 nine generic parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain return values, which parameter to provide, how to distinguish this from sibling tools, or what 'parse' means in terms of validation or normalization.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a Figma-specific framing, but it does not clarify which of the nine schema properties should be used for the Figma URL, and 'Path discarded' adds little beyond the schema's own 'discarded after the check' note.

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: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape and jira-key-shape. However, 'Path discarded' is ambiguous—it could refer to the URL path or the separate 'path' parameter—so it is clear but not fully precise.

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

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

The description implies usage when a Figma file URL needs parsing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, so guidance is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does add the useful limitation 'No disk access', which clarifies that the tool does not verify existence or permissions. However, it does not disclose what 'safe' means, how non-path parameters in the schema are handled, or what the result indicates beyond a look-safe 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 two short sentences with no filler, and the most important operational constraint ('No disk access') is placed right after the core purpose. It is easy to parse and front-loaded.

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

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

There is no output schema and no indication of what the tool returns, and the description does not resolve the ambiguity created by nine unrelated optional parameters. Given the broad schema and the sibling list, an agent would need more context to invoke this confidently in the right situation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; each parameter has a description, including 'path' as 'File path to check'. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics and, more importantly, does not explain whether the other eight optional properties are ignored, leaving ambiguity about which field is actually used.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Check') and object ('a path'), and the phrase 'looks safe' signals this is a validation/heuristic rather than an actual filesystem operation. It is distinguishable from URL-focused siblings like browser-url-ok, though 'safe' is left somewhat vague and the unrelated schema properties are not acknowledged.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or exclusions; 'No disk access' implies a pre-check, but the agent is not explicitly told when to choose this over similar shape-checking tools.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly indicates an external Open-Meteo lookup and the output type (latitude/longitude), but it does not disclose network behavior, possible failure modes, rate limits, or that inputs are discarded after the call.

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. It front-loads the core purpose, but it is so brief that it leaves important operational details unstated.

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

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

Despite a 100% schema-description coverage, the overall tool context is incomplete: no required-fields are declared, the output schema is absent, and the description does not explain which input corresponds to the place. An agent would struggle to reliably choose the correct parameter, especially with many seemingly unrelated properties present.

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 the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds the geocoding context but does not clarify which parameter is the 'place' or how the many unrelated fields (ref, url, json, path) relate to the geo-hint 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 states that the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, which names both the resource (coordinates) and the data source. It is distinguishable from siblings like weather-hint and timezone, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not identify which input parameter represents the place.

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 alternatives such as weather-hint, timezone, or web-fetch. The statement implies coordinate lookup, but it does not state prerequisites, parameter choice, or 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys a non-mutating parse operation, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior for non-GitHub URLs, or the fact that other schema fields are ignored/discarded. The schema property notes fill some of this gap, but the description itself is thin.

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

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

The description is one short sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 noisy seven-property schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is slightly too terse: it does not tell the agent which field to populate or what the result looks like. The shape-check and discard behavior is only discoverable from property-level descriptions. Still, for a trivial parser, the basic invocation context is present.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds domain specificity beyond the schema: it tells the agent that `url` is the GitHub URL to parse, whereas the schema's `url` description merely says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'. This reduces ambiguity among the seven string fields. It does not explicitly map to the parameter name, but the connection is clear.

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 verb ('Parse'), the target resource ('owner and repo'), and the source domain ('a GitHub URL'). This clearly distinguishes github-repo-shape from sibling shape tools like domain-shape, jira-key-shape, 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?

It identifies a clear context for use: when the agent has a GitHub URL and needs owner/repo extracted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the GitHub-URL scope is enough to route among shape tools. No misleading guidance is present.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state that titles are discarded and that the count is current, which gives some useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the tool performs a live network fetch, what the exact return format is, or how failures 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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral note earns its place by clarifying output 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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a puzzling 9-parameter optional schema. The description does not explain which parameters, if any, are relevant, whether zero arguments should be passed, or what the returned count looks like. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly beyond a blind empty call.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and the 9-parameter schema contains many fields that seem unrelated to counting HN stories, leaving the invocation contract confusing.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' The additional note 'Titles discarded' clarifies what the tool ignores. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the action and target are unambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like web-fetch or fetch-status, nor are any exclusions or preferred contexts stated. The only implied usage is when a count of HN front-page stories is needed, but that is not made explicit.

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 of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it triggers actions, or any side effects. The fragment 'for clock calls' hints at a use case but does not describe the behavior itself.

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?

Although the text is extremely short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. No action, resource, or result is front-loaded, and the fragment does not earn its place because it provides almost no usable information.

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

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and no meaningful parameters, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot know what input to provide, what output to expect, or how this tool relates to siblings like timezone and 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, which gives a baseline of 3, but the parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) appear unrelated to IANA timezone names. The description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they map to timezone zones, so the schema descriptions are likely to confuse rather than guide an 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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' lacks any verb or concrete action—it reads as a noun phrase describing a category, not a tool behavior. An agent cannot tell whether this tool lists, validates, maps, or returns timezone data, and it gives no clear differentiator from sibling tools like timezone or utc-time.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. With siblings such as timezone and utc-time available, an agent receives no help deciding whether iana-zones 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?

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions fetching public robots.txt and returning group counts, but does not mention network side effects, failure modes, or that most schema parameters appear irrelevant.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and output. No wasted words.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters relate to fetching robots.txt, what 'group counts' look like, or what failure behavior 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?

Although schema descriptions are present, they are generic and mismatched with the tool's purpose. The description does not map a specific parameter to the robots.txt URL, and the 'url' schema description only says 'normalize or cite', which is confusing.

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

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

The description clearly states the action and resource ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and the specific result ('return group counts only'). It distinguishes itself from generic fetch tools, though it does not name alternatives or clarify the input 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?

The description implies usage when someone needs robots.txt group counts, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of related siblings like web-fetch or fetch-status.

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

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

The phrase 'Key discarded' discloses one behavioral trait: the key is not retained. However, with no annotations present and no output schema, the description still leaves unspecified whether this is read-only, what it returns, and what happens on an invalid shape.

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

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

Two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and 'Key discarded' earns its place as a meaningful side-effect note. This is appropriately concise for the amount of information actually conveyed.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the full burden of explaining how to invoke it and what to expect. It neither identifies the input field for the Jira key nor describes the return value, leaving an agent unable to call it 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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. Although the input schema has field descriptions, none of the seven properties (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) is explicitly identified as the Jira key, so the agent cannot determine which 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 clearly names the action 'check' and the resource 'Jira issue key shape', which distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. However, it never connects the Jira key to any actual input field, so the purpose is clear but the invocation mapping 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 usage context is implied by the resource name: use this when you need to validate a Jira issue key's shape. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no alternatives mentioned, and no exclusions relative to sibling shape 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 transparency burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: the response body is discarded, so only the HTTP status matters. However, it does not mention network side effects, redirects, timeouts, error behavior, or why so many unrelated parameters are accepted, leaving important behavioral context missing.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a useful discard note. It has no filler, though it omits enough context to be fully self-sufficient, so it is not a perfect 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 nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this two-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the broad parameter surface, what the return value looks like beyond 'HTTP status,' or how this tool relates to its many siblings, leaving significant contextual gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and its narrow URL framing obscures the other eight accepted parameters. It neither compensates for gaps nor enriches the schema's parameter explanations.

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

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

The description states a concrete action and resource: returning the HTTP status for a public library docs URL and discarding the body. However, the input schema exposes nine unrelated parameters such as city, zone, json, and query, so the stated purpose does not accurately cover the full invocation surface and does little to distinguish it from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or other URL/status tools. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL,' with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions stated.

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 behavioral burden, but it only discloses that values are discarded. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return value is, whether anything is persisted, or any side effects. This is useful but insufficient for a tool with no safety annotations.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler; the main operation is front-loaded and the behavioral note about discarded values earns its place. It is concise while still conveying the essential idea.

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, no output schema, and many siblings, this description is too thin. It does not explain how the JSON object should be supplied, what the returned count looks like, or when this tool is preferred over similar validation/count tools, leaving important operational gaps.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the per-parameter descriptions are not well aligned with the tool purpose: 'json' is described as text to validate rather than as an object whose keys are counted, and the other eight parameters appear irrelevant to key counting. The description adds no mapping between 'a JSON object' and any of the nine properties, so an agent cannot confidently choose what to pass.

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 with a clear verb and resource: count keys in a JSON object, and it adds that values are discarded. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools or name an alternative, so it is clear but not fully disambiguated. The schema mismatch with the stated purpose is more of a parameter/context issue than a purpose-clarity issue.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate-json or other shape/count tools. The description gives no scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the one-liner and tool name.

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 disclosure burden. It does state the returned components and the fact that query and fragment are dropped, but it does not mention behavior for invalid URLs, output formatting, or what happens to the many other parameters listed in the schema.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each clause earns its place: the output is stated first, and the dropping behavior is a relevant constraint. This is appropriately concise for a simple utility.

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 core operation is simple and the schema documents each parameter's discarding behavior, but the description does not specify the output structure, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. It also does not position the tool against the many URL-related siblings, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is high; every parameter already has an explanatory description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds the 'query and fragment are dropped' rule for the url parameter, but it does not clarify how url relates to the other parameters or whether they are simply ignored.

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 a clear resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), and it adds the behavioral detail that query and fragment are dropped. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish normalize-url from URL-related siblings such as domain-shape or browser-url-ok.

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

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

The described behavior implies when to use the tool: when a URL needs to be reduced to origin, host, and path. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of alternatives, and no indication that non-URL parameters are ignored, so guidance remains mostly 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. It only reveals that no browser is launched; it does not state whether a network request is made, what 'opened' means, what result is returned, or how failures/timeouts behave. This is insufficient for a networking 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action and a key non-obvious behavior (no browser) are communicated efficiently.

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 definition is not complete for a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and close siblings. It omits the check's success/failure semantics, the return value, and which parameter to supply, leaving agents 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not indicate which of the nine optional parameters is relevant to the URL check, though schema entries like 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' mitigate this.

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

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

The description states a clear verb ('Check') and resource ('whether a URL can be opened'), and 'No browser is launched' hints at a non-browser checking mechanism. However, 'opened' is left ambiguous—it could mean HTTP success, reachability, or TLS—and the tool name's Playwright reference is not reconciled.

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 such as browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or normalize-url. 'No browser is launched' is a behavioral caveat, not a selection rule, so an agent must infer usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the query is discarded, which is a useful privacy-relevant behavior. However, it does not mention return format, error behavior, or what happens if multiple parameters are supplied, so transparency is only partial.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no 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 has seven optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers counting and discarding. An agent cannot determine the return value, which parameter to pass, or when to prefer this tool over its siblings, so the definition is not complete enough 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?

The schema has descriptions for all seven parameters, which normally earns a baseline of 3, but none of the properties (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) maps to a 'search query' and the description gives no clue which parameter to use. The property descriptions appear to belong to unrelated tools, so the definition fails to help an agent select the correct input.

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 verb ('Count') and resource ('characters in a search query'), so the core action is clear. However, it is vague about what counts as the 'search query', and the input schema exposes seven unrelated parameters with no 'query' field, which undermines the clarity. It also does not differentiate this tool from any sibling.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or typical use cases. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states what the catalog contains. It does not explain whether the tool performs network requests, returns static data, or has side effects, leaving the agent to guess.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded and succinct, earning a top score for conciseness.

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

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

The tool has 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the tool does with the inputs, what the expected output looks like, or which parameters are required. This is severely incomplete for an agent to select and 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 provides a description for each of the 14 parameters, so schema coverage is high. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify how parameters like 'url', 'city', or 'json' relate to a status code catalog.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the resource as a catalog of common HTTP status codes, which is useful for an agent looking for status code reference information. However, it lacks a specific action verb (e.g., 'returns', 'lists') and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or normalize-url. An agent gets no context about whether to consult this catalog for status code meanings or to check a live URL.

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

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

The description mentions that the prompt is discarded, which is a behavioral note, but it does not explain side effects, guarantees, or whether the operation is purely read-only. With no annotations, more transparency is needed.

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 very short and contains no filler. The phrasing is slightly awkward but still concise and front-loaded.

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

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

The description lacks information about what the three steps are, what template means in this context, or how the nine irrelevant parameters affect the result. The output is underspecified.

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

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

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, and each parameter explicitly says it is discarded after a shape check, so the baseline is met. The description text adds no further parameter meaning.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns a three-step thinking template, which is a specific output. However, 'Prompt discarded' is vague and does not clarify what input is discarded or how it relates to the tool's purpose.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of a sibling tool, and no conditions or alternatives are mentioned.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the one-line purpose. It does not say whether the tool performs network I/O, how the current time is obtained, what happens for an invalid timezone name, or what the response format looks like.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is readable and succinct, though its brevity leaves critical information about the required input missing.

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

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the presence of eight schema parameters with no timezone field, the description is critically incomplete. The tool as documented cannot be invoked correctly because the central piece of input—the timezone name—is nowhere represented.

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 exposes eight parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) but none of them represents an IANA timezone. The description references a 'named IANA timezone' without mapping it to any schema field, so an agent cannot construct a valid call based on the provided information.

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 ('Current time') on a specific resource ('a named IANA timezone'), which makes the intended purpose clear and conceptually distinct from siblings like utc-time or iana-zones. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, and the input schema contains no timezone parameter, which makes the purpose harder to trust in practice.

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 utc-time or iana-zones. An agent cannot tell from this text what conditions select this tool over its siblings, nor what prerequisites (such as a valid IANA zone name) apply.

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 fails to mention that the nine optional parameters are effectively irrelevant to the result (as most schema descriptions indicate they are discarded), nor does it specify the timestamp format. This creates a real risk of the agent passing params like zone expecting an effect.

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?

Four words, no filler, and the key information is front-loaded. It is concise, though the terseness contributes to missing context rather than being a fully specified definition.

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

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

No output schema and no annotations, plus nine optional parameters, mean the description must compensate. It does not clarify return format, parameter behavior, or relationship to sibling tools, so an agent cannot reliably invoke and parse output.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description, meeting the baseline. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters and does not warn that they do not affect the UTC timestamp.

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 phrase 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the tool returns the current UTC time and sufficiently distinguishes it from timezone-related siblings like timezone and iana-zones. It lacks a verb and exact output format, 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?

Usage is implied: call when you need the current UTC timestamp. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer siblings such as timezone/iana-zones.

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 key side effect ('body is discarded'), implying no persistence. However, it does not mention the return value or outcome for invalid JSON, nor any other behavior such as error handling 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and a meaningful safety detail; no filler. The wording could be improved by using 'JSON text' or naming the parameter instead of the vague 'body'.

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

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

Despite a detailed schema, no output schema is provided and the description does not describe the result shape (true/false, error message, status). It also leaves unexplained the purpose of the unrelated fields (ref, url, city, feed, host, path), making the tool difficult to invoke correctly.

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

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

Every schema property has a description, so schema coverage is high and the description need not re-document fields. The description's use of 'body' adds only ambiguity rather than semantic value because it does not name the 'json' parameter.

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

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

The description uses a concrete verb ('Check whether') with a resource ('a body') and the target condition ('valid JSON'), which makes the tool's main function clear and distinguishes it from sibling URL/browser/git validators. It loses one point because 'body' is never mapped to the schema's 'json' parameter, leaving mild ambiguity about what input is validated.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The name implies JSON-validation use, but neither the description nor the tool text says when to choose validate-json over the many sibling validation tools or what prerequisites apply.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the external service (Open-Meteo) but does not state whether the call is read-only, how results are returned, what units are used, or how errors and timeouts 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?

A single sentence with no filler; the key identifying details, resource and provider, are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple read 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 the seven-parameter schema and no output schema or annotations, the definition is not complete enough. It does not mention that only the city parameter is relevant, how the other parameters behave, or what the caller should expect in the response.

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

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

All seven parameters already have descriptive schema text, so the schema covers most semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond implying that city is the key input; the baseline 3 is appropriate because it does not compensate for the unusually wide parameter list.

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 the resource (current temperature for a city) and the provider (Open-Meteo), so an agent can infer the tool returns weather data. It lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' and does not contrast with related siblings such as geo-hint, but the core purpose is clear.

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 instead of alternatives like web-fetch or geo-hint, and no exclusions are stated. The description only declares the basic function, leaving the agent to infer suitability.

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?

Given no annotations, the description does disclose the main behavioral facts: it returns HTTP status/content type and discards the body. It does not cover error behavior, redirects, timeouts, or how the large set of other schema parameters relate to the fetch.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the key limitation are both stated clearly and efficiently.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin for the actual schema complexity. It does not explain whether URL is required, what happens if other parameters are supplied, or what the response format is.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description in the input schema. The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning and leaves the relationship between the URL-focused purpose and the nine heterogeneous parameters 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 clearly specifies the tool's core outcome: HTTP status and content type for a public URL, with the body discarded. It is concise and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

'Public URL' and 'Body discarded' imply a lightweight health/content-type check and exclude private URLs or body retrieval. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the title is discarded after the call, suggesting no retention or persistent side effects. However, it does not state whether the check is read-only, whether it makes a network request, or what happens on failure, leaving important behavior unspecified.

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 purpose. The second sentence about discarding the title contributes some behavioral information without unnecessary verbosity. It earns its place, though the overall definition is incomplete for other reasons.

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 mismatch between the described behavior and the actual schema, the definition is not complete enough for correct invocation. It lacks any guidance on which parameter holds the Wikipedia title, what the return value looks like, and any network or error behavior. The presence of many unrelated schema properties makes this gap more severe.

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 refers to a 'title', but the input schema has no title parameter at all. The provided parameters are ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path, none of which is clearly mapped to the Wikipedia-title check. An agent cannot determine which argument to pass, making the description fundamentally inadequate for parameter 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 clearly states the verb and resource: check whether a Wikipedia title exists. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or file-path-ok, which target other domains. However, the phrase 'Title discarded after the call' adds an unusual secondary behavior that slightly distracts from the core purpose.

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

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

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of a sibling such as citation, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The intended use is only implied by the purpose statement, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing guidance.

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