Asia/Bahrain clock

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 explicitly says 'Task text discarded' and notes each parameter is 'discarded' after a check, signaling that inputs are not persisted. It also mentions in the schema that 'path' involves no disk access. However, it does not cover return format details, side effects, rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation beyond what is inferred from 'Find' and 'Returns connection methods'.

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

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

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences with the core intent front-loaded. It avoids redundancy and the behavioral note about task text being discarded is a useful transparency addition rather than filler. While the task examples could be slightly more structured, it is efficiently written.

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 high complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to choose which parameter(s) to provide for a specific task type (weather, search, scrape, voice). An agent lacks enough context to map a task to the correct inputs, and there is no information about what form the returned 'connection methods' take or any pagination or error behavior.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the 9 parameters already described in the schema (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, leaving unclear how these diverse parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) map to the gateway-finding logic. For instance, an agent cannot determine whether city or query is the right input for a weather gateway. Baseline 3 applies because the schema covers each parameter, but the description does not deepen this coverage.

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: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway' with examples of tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice. This clarifies it is a meta-tool that returns connection methods, distinguishing it from siblings that perform operations directly (e.g., weather-hint, normalize-url). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools, so a slight ambiguity remains.

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 you need a connection method for a public pay-per-call tool, rather than performing the task itself. It gives examples of task categories but does not state when *not* to use the tool or how it compares to alternatives like calc-eval or status-catalog. There is no explicit routing to siblings or exclusions, leaving the usage context partially 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses only that no browser is launched but does not mention whether it makes a network request, performs validation, or has any 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately concise for the limited content it provides.

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 and no output schema, yet the description does not explain which parameter is required, what the result looks like, or how the tool behaves. This leaves too much unspecified 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 input schema already has 100% coverage with individual parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics and does not clarify how the many unrelated parameters fit into the URL-open check.

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 object ('check whether a URL can be opened'), and adds a notable negative behavior ('No browser is launched'). However, with nine optional parameters, it is vague about which parameter actually drives the check and what 'opened' means.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like playwright-url-ok or fetch-status. The only implied usage cue is the negative note 'No browser is launched,' which is not enough to guide selection among similar tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Expression discarded,' which is insufficient. It does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, how it handles invalid input, or what it does with the other supplied 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 short and avoids unnecessary words, but the second sentence adds confusion rather than clarity. Conciseness is undermined by the absence of any usable invocation structure.

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

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

With no output schema and a description that does not explain return format, error behavior, or parameter roles, the tool is incomplete from an agent's perspective. The unrelated optional parameters only increase 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?

All nine parameters have individual descriptions, but those descriptions are unrelated to arithmetic and mention things like Git refs, URLs, timezones, and JSON validation. There is no expression parameter, so the parameter list does not support the stated 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 names an operation ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic'), but the schema contains no expression parameter, so an agent cannot tell what input should be evaluated. The added sentence 'Expression discarded' further muddies the intended 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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools, nor is there an example or explanation of how the listed parameters relate to arithmetic evaluation. An agent has no way to know how to construct a valid call.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that page content is not stored, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether network requests are made, how redirects or errors are handled, or any side effects. The single behavioral detail is helpful but incomplete.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded. However, given the tool's parameter complexity, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, but as a structural trait it 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It only explains the URL-related behavior, leaving the other 8 parameters unexplained in the description (though schema descriptions exist). An agent cannot correctly invoke the tool for non-URL use cases or understand the full scope. The description does not cover output format, error behavior, or any prerequisites.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description only references 'URL' while the schema contains 9 parameters, many of which (e.g., 'ref', 'city', 'feed', 'json') appear unrelated to URL normalization. The description fails to explain the relationship or purpose of these other parameters, leaving agents confused about what the tool actually does beyond URL checking. This is a significant 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('URL'), and lists the outputs (host, scheme, HTTP status). It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, which may have overlapping purposes. The statement about content not being stored adds a small distinction.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. An agent would have to infer usage from the purpose, which is insufficient for a tool with many similar siblings.

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

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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy guarantee but does not address whether the tool performs network calls, has side effects, or how it processes the inputs. With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency but falls short; it does not even confirm the operation is read-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?

The description is only one sentence, which is concise but not appropriately sized for a tool with 9 parameters and no other documentation. It is under-specified rather than efficiently front-loaded. The privacy note is given but no substantive information about the tool's function is provided, so brevity is not a virtue here.

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

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

This tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description offers almost no useful context. It does not explain what the classification result looks like, how parameters are used, or any behavioral caveats. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based on this description alone; it is critically 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning about how the parameters relate to the classification or what each one contributes. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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

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

The description 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and lacks specificity. It does not state what classification is performed, what the output represents, or how it relates to the tool's name 'compatibility'. It reads more like a generic phrase than a concrete function, and it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling tools that also process URLs, files, and queries.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when this tool should be used over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or typical scenarios. With 9 optional parameters and no context, an agent has no way to decide if this is the right tool for a given request.

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 bears the burden of disclosing side effects and access patterns. It only says the tool operates 'without WHOIS or ownership data,' which hints at no ownership lookup, but it does not state whether it is read-only, makes network calls, or persists anything. The schema-level 'discarded' notes are not part of the tool description.

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 could be improved by adding an example or clarifying the input field, but it is 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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return format, error behavior, or which of the nine optional parameters is required/expected. This leaves important context missing for a tool with an ambiguous parameter list.

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 adds little parameter-specific meaning, and the schema contains many unrelated optional fields, but the 'host' parameter is at least described as 'Public hostname', so an agent can infer the intended 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 clearly states the action ('Split a hostname into labels') and resource ('hostname'), and the negative scope ('without WHOIS or ownership data') helps distinguish it from ownership lookups. However, it does not specify which input parameter carries the hostname, and the sibling context includes several shape tools, so it is not maximally disambiguating.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or other *-shape tools. The description states what it does but not the circumstances or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions a HEAD request and 'status only' but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention potential errors, rate limits, or network behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, succinct sentence that conveys the core action and output. There is no fluff or unnecessary detail, making it highly 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 is incomplete given the schema's many irrelevant parameters and lack of an output schema. It does not explain why parameters like 'zone' or 'path' exist, nor does it specify that only 'url' is relevant, leaving the agent potentially confused about usage.

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

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

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but many parameters (e.g., 'city', 'feed', 'json') are irrelevant to the stated purpose of checking a URL status. The tool description adds no clarification on which parameters are actually used or how they relate to the operation.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool performs a HEAD request on a public URL and returns only the status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like web-fetch or browser-url-ok by emphasizing 'status only'.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web-fetch or playwright-url-ok. It is unclear whether this is preferred for quick status checks or if other tools should handle different scenarios.

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

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

The description suggests a read-only parsing operation and notes one discarded aspect, but it does not disclose output, error behavior, side effects, or any restrictions; the missing annotations increase the burden on the description.

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 text is short and straightforward, but it is too terse: 'Path discarded' is cryptic and the description lacks enough structure to support the tool's actual 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?

The tool has no output schema, no usage context, and no explanation of how the three-line description relates to the nine optional parameters; an agent cannot reliably infer expected inputs or return values.

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

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

Although every parameter has a description, the parameters appear unrelated to parsing Figma file URLs (e.g., city, feed, zone, query) and descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check' do not clarify their role in this tool.

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

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

The description names a specific action and object ('Parse a Figma file URL'), but the phrase 'Path discarded' is ambiguous and the input schema lists many unrelated optional fields, so the actual purpose is not fully 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 for when to use this tool rather than sibling URL/shape tools, and there are no conditions, prerequisites, or examples to select it appropriately.

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 no disk access occurs, which is a key safety property, but it says nothing about side effects for the other parameters (e.g., some are 'discarded after the check' per schema but not in the description) or about return values. The single behavioral fact is useful but incomplete.

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

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

The description is extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose and a key safety caveat. It avoids verbosity, but it is arguably under-specified given the tool's 9 parameters, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

The tool has 9 parameters but the description only addresses the path parameter. The presence of ref, url, city, feed, etc. is unexplained, and the description does not clarify whether the tool validates any of these or only path. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent would be uncertain about return behavior. The description is incomplete for such a complex schema.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents parameters adequately, though the description does not clarify how the unrelated parameters relate to the path check.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool checks whether a path looks safe and explicitly notes 'No disk access,' which differentiates it from disk-accessing operations. However, it doesn't mention the other 8 parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) that are present in the schema, so the purpose is clear but the scope is confusingly broader than implied.

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 the many sibling tools like browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or wiki-title-ok. It only states a safety fact ('No disk access') but does not explain when a path check is appropriate or when to prefer another tool.

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 and the description does not disclose side effects, network behavior, data handling, or failure modes. It only says 'via Open-Meteo', which implies an external call but does not clarify what is discarded or whether the operation is read-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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It states the essential output and service in minimal space.

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

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

With nine optional parameters and no output schema, this minimal description is not enough for an agent to know which input to supply, what response to expect, or how errors are surfaced. The complexity is high relative to the information provided.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the tool-level description does not map 'a place' to the `city` parameter, and most schema parameters (ref, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) appear unrelated to geocoding. The per-parameter descriptions add some information, yet the connection to the purpose is missing.

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 output (latitude and longitude) and the backing service (Open-Meteo), and it is distinguishable from sibling weather/geography tools. It lacks an explicit action verb and leaves 'place' vague, but the intent 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 on when to call this tool, which parameter identifies the place, or how it relates to alternatives such as weather-hint or timezone. All parameters are optional in the schema, so an agent receives no help selecting the relevant input.

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 side effects, output format, or what happens with the many irrelevant parameters. While 'parse' implies read-only behavior, the description does not clarify whether other inputs are ignored or rejected, and it omits any mention of error handling.

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 immediately conveys the primary purpose. It is concise and easy to read, though it omits necessary context about the extra parameters and expected behavior.

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 and no output schema, yet the description explains neither the return value format nor how to combine parameters. It does not mention whether all parameters are accepted or only url is used, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it correctly in ambiguous cases.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the main description implies only 'url' is relevant, while the schema lists many unrelated fields. The url parameter description says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than 'GitHub URL to parse owner and repo,' which conflicts with the tool's stated purpose. Additional descriptions do not clarify how or whether they relate to parsing a GitHub repo.

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 ('Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL') with a specific verb and resource, and the tool name distinguishes it from sibling shape tools. However, the input schema contains many unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.), which creates confusion about the 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, domain-shape, or figma-url-shape. It does not state that it is specifically for GitHub repo URLs or what to do when the URL is not a GitHub 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?

Given no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints that titles are discarded, but does not mention whether it fetches live data, makes network calls, handles parameters (which appear to be ignored), or what the exact output format is. An agent cannot infer side effects from this description alone.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately clarifies a limitation (titles discarded). 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 is complex due to 9 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description doesn't clarify parameter behavior, output shape, or prerequisites. It is far from complete for an agent to invoke this tool safely and predictably.

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 contains 9 parameters, all optional, with descriptions that are generic and unrelated to Hacker News (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint'). The tool description does not explain how these parameters affect the count or whether they are simply ignored. The 'discarded' notes suggest they may be irrelevant, but this is not stated in the description, leaving the agent confused.

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 counts current Hacker News front-page stories, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fetch-status' or 'browser-url-ok' by focusing on a count rather than content retrieval. The note 'Titles discarded' adds a small clarification about what is not returned.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 29 sibling tools. It doesn't mention exclusions (e.g., 'use this instead of fetch-status if you only need a number') or any context that would help an agent choose it appropriately.

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, but it only states what the tool is for, not what it does with inputs, what it returns, or whether it has side effects. The parameter descriptions hint at 'discarded' values, but the main description does not disclose behavior.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded, with no redundant prose. It loses points only because the extreme brevity omits necessary details, not because of 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?

Despite a 9-parameter schema and no output schema, the description gives almost no context about expected inputs, output, or relation to sibling tools. The confusing parameter descriptions are not resolved, leaving an agent unable to confidently invoke the tool.

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

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

The input schema includes nine optional strings, most of which (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, query) are unrelated to IANA timezone names and have confusing descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check.' Only 'zone' is clearly relevant, so the description adds little and largely obscures how the tool should be called.

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 as 'common IANA timezone names for clock calls,' which is reasonably specific and distinct from sibling time tools. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an action (e.g., 'list'), and the name alone doesn't clarify whether this returns a list or checks a name.

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 the many sibling tools like timezone, tz-asia-bahrain, or utc-time. There are no conditions or examples to help an agent select it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It only says it fetches and returns group counts, but does not mention which parameters are used, whether it performs network I/O, what constitutes 'group counts', or any side effects. This is minimal transparency beyond the name.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specified, so the conciseness is not effectively used to convey necessary 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain which parameters are relevant, what the return value looks like, or any constraints, making it insufficient for an agent 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 description adds no information about parameters. The schema contains 9 parameters with descriptions, but they are unrelated to fetching robots.txt (e.g., city, ref, feed). The description does not clarify which parameter is the URL or host, leaving the agent unable to determine how to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

The description states a specific verb (fetch), resource (public robots.txt), and output (group counts only), which is clear and distinct from generic fetch tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like web-fetch or fetch-status, though the 'group counts only' qualifier adds uniqueness.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or context that would route an agent here instead of a sibling like web-fetch or normalize-url.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Key discarded.' This implies inputs are not retained, but it does not explain what the tool actually returns, whether it is read-only, or how failures are signaled. It also fails to reconcile the 'Jira key' focus with the broad set of parameters, leaving the agent unsure of side effects or outcomes.

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 sentences, so it is not bloated. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. Key information like return value, usage context, and the relationship between the name and the schema is absent. It is concise but not effectively structured to aid agent decision-making.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool checks beyond 'Jira key shape', nor does it clarify how the many parameters are used or what the result looks like. An agent cannot confidently call this tool based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a textual description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, but since the schema carries the full burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional value is provided.

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

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

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), so the core intent is clear. However, the input schema includes parameters like city, feed, host, json, and path that have nothing to do with Jira keys, suggesting the tool is actually a general-purpose shape checker. This mismatch confuses the purpose, and the description does not differentiate it from sibling shape tools such as domain-shape or github-repo-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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description neither states the conditions under which it should be invoked nor mentions any exclusions. An agent cannot decide between this and the many other shape-checking tools without inspecting each sibling's 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 provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does say 'Body discarded,' which is a useful behavioral note, but it omits what happens with the other 8 parameters (e.g., are they validated? discarded? cause side effects?). The description only covers the URL case, leaving the tool's full 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 concise (two phrases) and front-loads the primary action. However, its brevity comes at the cost of completeness — it omits the tool's actual scope (as seen in the schema) and provides no usage context. It is not wasteful, but it fails to earn its place by being misleadingly narrow.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers only one use case (library docs URL) and says nothing about the other parameters, return format, or when to use it. An agent would have no idea how to correctly invoke this tool for the other 8 parameters or what to expect. This is severely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — every parameter has a description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It neither helps nor hurts.

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 (get HTTP status for a library docs URL) and that the body is discarded, which is clear in isolation. However, it directly conflicts with the input schema, which lists 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, zone, etc.), implying the tool does far more than check library docs URLs. This mismatch makes the purpose ambiguous and misleading for an agent deciding which tool to call.

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 siblings like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. It doesn't mention alternatives, conditions for selection, or exclusions. An agent has no basis to choose this over closely related tools.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description only says values are discarded. It does not explain behavior on invalid input, return format, or whether side effects occur.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the expense of necessary details about which parameter holds the JSON object. It is short yet not effectively structured.

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

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

There is no output schema, no error semantics, no example, and no clarification of the relationship between the many unrelated parameters and the stated purpose. The tool definition is 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?

Nine optional string parameters are listed, but most appear unrelated to counting JSON keys (ref, url, city, feed, host, path, zone, query). Their descriptions mostly say they are discarded, and the only JSON-related parameter is described as validation, not key counting, so parameters do not clarify the tool's actual 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 states 'Count keys in a JSON object' but does not indicate which input parameter contains that object; the 'json' parameter is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', not as the object to count. The purpose is therefore obscured by conflicting schema hints.

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 for when to use this tool versus siblings like validate-json or search-query-len. The description provides no usage context, examples, or 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, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does disclose one behavior: query and fragment are dropped. However, it says nothing about how the other eight parameters (e.g., ref, city, feed, json) are handled, even though their schema descriptions indicate they are 'discarded after a check.' This omission leaves the tool's actual behavior for non-URL inputs completely opaque, and the return format is also undisclosed.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the primary behavior. However, given the tool's 9-parameter schema and no output schema, this brevity borders on under-specification. It omits critical context about non-URL parameters and output, making the description efficient but incomplete.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It addresses only the URL use case, leaving the purpose and behavior of the other eight parameters unexplained. An agent cannot reliably call this tool for any input other than a simple URL without additional external knowledge.

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% – every parameter has a description in the schema. However, the tool description adds no value beyond the schema; it only mentions URL normalization, while the schema lists many parameters unrelated to URLs. The description fails to clarify which parameters are relevant to the stated purpose or how the others interact, so an agent cannot determine what to pass for a non-URL request.

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 result: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' This clearly identifies the tool's primary function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain-shape or browser-url-ok, which focus on validation rather than normalization. However, the input schema includes many unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, zone, etc.), suggesting the tool may serve additional purposes not reflected in the description, which slightly muddies the overall purpose.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools that might be preferred for certain tasks. An agent is left to infer that this is for URL normalization, but with 28 sibling tools, explicit routing would be helpful.

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 tool claims 'No browser is launched' but gives no explanation of how it checks openness. Parameter descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access', and 'length check' suggest behavior not explained in the main description. No annotations are present to clarify side effects or limitations.

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 main description is brief, but the input schema is bloated with nine parameters, most of which appear irrelevant. The structure itself is clean, but the content is confusing and does not support the tool's stated 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?

There is no output schema, no examples, and no explanation of return values or error behavior. Given the large sibling-tool list and the unusual parameter set, the definition lacks essential context for an agent 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?

Although schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, most descriptions are unrelated to the stated purpose. For example, 'city' is a 'weather hint', 'feed' has 'titles discarded', and 'query' is for a 'length check'. The 'url' description says 'normalize or cite' rather than 'check open', creating a severe mismatch between parameters and tool intent.

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 it checks whether a URL can be opened, but the input schema includes many unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, json, zone, query) and the 'url' parameter is described as 'normalize or cite' rather than 'check open'. This makes the tool's actual purpose ambiguous and inconsistent with its name.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like browser-url-ok, fetch-status, normalize-url, or status-catalog. The description does not mention alternatives or specific conditions 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 full responsibility. It discloses that the query is discarded, but says nothing about the other parameters (whether they are used, ignored, or also discarded). It also omits any mention of return value, side effects, or prerequisites. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with 9 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 extremely short, which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. With 9 parameters and no output schema, a one-sentence description is not appropriately sized. It lacks essential structure to guide an agent effectively.

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 large parameter set, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the role of the other 8 parameters, what the tool returns, or how it differs from siblings. An agent cannot safely call this tool correctly without additional context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no new meaning about parameters; it merely restates the query's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the documentation, but the description does not compensate for the tool's apparent single-purpose nature among many parameters.

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

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

The description states a specific action (count characters) and resource (search query), but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like memory-key-count or hn-front-count. It also fails to clarify that only the 'query' parameter is used, leaving ambiguity about the other 8 parameters.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects or safety. It simply states a catalog exists without indicating whether it's read-only, whether it performs network calls, or has any side effects. The vague parameter descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') hint at validation but are inconsistent with a status-code catalog.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence with no extraneous content. It is perfectly concise and easy to parse.

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 not sufficiently complete given the tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema. It fails to explain what the parameters do, how they affect the result, or what the output format is. The mismatched parameter descriptions add confusion rather than completeness.

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 appear generic and mostly irrelevant to HTTP status codes (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name', 'Search text'). These descriptions are likely copy-pasted from unrelated tools and do not clarify how each parameter relates to the catalog. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, and the misleading descriptions actively harm comprehension.

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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' names the resource but doesn't specify the action (e.g., list, look up, validate). It's a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, which leaves the tool's exact functionality ambiguous. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools that also reference status codes (e.g., 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, use cases, or contrasts with sibling tools, leaving the agent without context 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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details such as side effects, permissions, or data handling. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous and does not clarify the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but brevity without substance is not effective. It lacks sufficient detail to be considered well-structured or informative.

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

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

The tool is missing essential context: what the 'three-step thinking template' is, how the parameters relate, what the output looks like, and when it should be used. The absence of an output schema or any example further compounds the incompleteness.

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

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

Although schema descriptions exist for each parameter, they are disconnected from the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' and 'City name for a public weather hint' imply multiple incompatible functions, leaving the parameters semantically meaningless in the context of 'three-step thinking template'.

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 'Return a three-step thinking template' does not match the extensive parameter list (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) which appear to belong to distinctly different operations. There is no coherent statement of what the tool actually does.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any of the 28 sibling tools. The description offers no context, use cases, or conditions for invocation.

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 bears full burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what side effects (if any) exist, or how irrelevant parameters are treated. The parameter descriptions mention 'discarded' and 'no disk access,' hinting at behavior, but these are scattered and unclear.

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. However, the jarring mismatch between description and schema makes the structure feel incomplete or erroneous, reducing clarity.

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

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

No output schema is provided, and the tool's behavior with unexpected or irrelevant parameters is not explained. The simple purpose could be adequately documented with a note about ignoring non-zone inputs, but such context is missing, leaving the 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 schema descriptions cover all parameters, but most are clearly unrelated to the tool's purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). Only 'zone' is meaningful for a timezone lookup. The descriptions for irrelevant parameters actively mislead the agent about what inputs are expected.

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 purpose: 'Current time in a named IANA timezone.' However, the input schema includes many unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, query) that contradict the stated purpose, causing confusion about what the tool actually does.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like iana-zones, tz-asia-bahrain, or utc-time. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions 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?

There are no annotations, and the description only implies a read-only time lookup. The behavior with the nine optional parameters is unclear, and the 'discarded' notes in the schema are cryptic and do not fully disclose side effects or output behavior.

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

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

The description is one short sentence with no filler, making it easy to read. It could be slightly more explicit by using a verb, but it is 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?

There is no output schema, return format, usage context, or parameter explanation. Given nine optional parameters and several closely related sibling tools, the description leaves too much unspecified for a caller to confidently predict the tool's behavior.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, most parameter descriptions are unrelated to a time lookup (ref, url, json, path, query, etc.) and only 'zone' seems relevant. The tool description does not clarify which parameters are actually used, leaving the schema misleading.

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's function: reporting the current local time in the Asia/Bahrain timezone. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return', but the intent is still evident and the resource is specific.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as timezone, iana-zones, or utc-time. There is also no mention of call context, prerequisites, or situations where this tool would be inappropriate.

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, and the description does not disclose that all input parameters appear to be ignored or discarded. Several parameter descriptions imply unrelated behaviors (e.g., URL normalization, JSON validation) that contradict the simple timestamp operation, creating confusion about actual side effects or lack thereof.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary wording. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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

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

Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of many seemingly irrelevant parameters, the description lacks essential context. It does not specify the timestamp format (e.g., ISO 8601, Unix epoch), whether arguments are ever accepted, or why the listed parameters exist. This incompleteness could lead to incorrect usage.

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

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

Although schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, they are misleading in context. Parameters like 'url', 'city', 'feed', and 'json' suggest operations unrelated to a UTC timestamp, and terms like 'discarded after the shape check' are ambiguous. The schema does not help an agent understand which, if any, parameters are actually meaningful for this tool.

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

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

The description states a specific operation: returning the current UTC timestamp. It is clear and matches the tool name. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones' beyond the explicit UTC focus.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The presence of nine seemingly unrelated optional parameters with no explanation of how they relate to fetching a timestamp leaves the agent without clear invocation 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?

The description is vague about the tool's behavior. It says the body is discarded, but does not clarify what is returned (e.g., boolean, error, status). It also fails to explain how the numerous extraneous parameters relate to validation, creating confusion about actual execution. No annotations are present to supplement this.

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 brief, consisting of two short sentences. It wastes no words, but the brevity sacrifices critical information. It is concise but not necessarily well-structured for comprehension, as it omits necessary details about inputs and outputs.

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

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

Given the tool's potential complexity indicated by the nine parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain success/error behavior, return type, or how the parameters are used. The lack of output schema and annotations further limits the context, leaving agents with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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

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

The description mentions 'body' and 'json', but the schema lists nine parameters, most of which have descriptions unrelated to JSON validation (e.g., ref, url, city). The mismatch between the description's term 'body' and the schema's 'json' parameter is unexplained, and the purpose of the other parameters is not clarified. Parameter semantics are thus poorly aligned with the tool's stated function.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool checks whether a body is valid JSON, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools that also perform validation or checks, and the name 'validate-json' already implies the purpose, so the description adds only moderate 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, typical scenarios, or situations where it would be preferred over other tools. Given the large sibling set, this lack of usage direction leaves agents uncertain about applicability.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention that the tool likely performs an external network call, that all parameters except 'city' may be discarded, or any side effects or limitations such as missing city data.

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

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

The description is concise and immediately understandable. It lacks a more structured format such as 'Returns...' or 'Use with...', but it is not bloated or redundant.

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 schema has nine optional parameters and no required fields, the description is incomplete. It does not explain which parameter is needed, why the other parameters exist, or what happens if none are provided. The absence of an output schema is not the issue; the input ambiguity is significant.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and the schema includes several seemingly unrelated parameters, which is confusing, but the individual parameter descriptions provide some semantic 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 clearly states the tool provides current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo, which distinguishes it from sibling tools. It could be more explicit with a verb like 'returns' or 'fetches', 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no indication that the 'city' parameter is the relevant input or that other parameters are ignored. The description names the service but does not explain invocation 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?

The description transparently states that the body is discarded and the target must be a public URL. It doesn't disclose redirect handling, error cases, timeout behavior, or output format, and several schema parameters are described only as discarded without explaining why they are accepted.

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 prose description is concise and front-loaded, but the overall tool definition is structurally bloated by seven irrelevant optional parameters. The single sentence earns its place, yet the parameter list adds noise rather than clarity.

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

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

The description is too sparse to be complete in context: it doesn't specify what the agent should pass, how to interpret the response, or when to prefer this tool over the many sibling URL/fetch/status tools. The lack of an output schema and required parameters leaves critical usage details implicit.

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 highly misleading: 9 optional parameters are listed but only 'url' is relevant to the described fetch behavior, and even that description says 'normalize or cite' rather than fetch. Other parameters like 'city', 'zone', and 'json' are unrelated to HTTP status checks, and no parameter is marked required despite the tool needing a URL.

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 tool returns HTTP status and content type for a public URL and discards the body, giving a specific action and resource. However it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and doesn't distinguish itself from related 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as browse-url-ok, fetch-status, or normalize-url. The only behavioral hint is 'Body discarded', which implies lightweight use but is not an explicit selection criterion.

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. The only behavioral note is 'Title discarded after the call,' which is a trivial data-retention fact. It does not disclose side effects, error behavior, return format, or the fact that the tool seems to validate many different input types, not just Wikipedia titles. The mismatch between the described purpose and the schema parameters is a significant undisclosed trait.

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 (two sentences), which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the core action, but it lacks essential information about input mapping and scope. Conciseness is not merely brevity; it must be appropriately sized to convey necessary details. Here, the brevity leaves the agent with no actionable guidance.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how to construct a valid call, which parameter is the title, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. The tool appears to be a generic shape-checker based on the parameter descriptions, yet the description claims a very narrow purpose. The gap between claimed and actual behavior makes this tool effectively unusable without additional external knowledge.

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%, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The parameter descriptions themselves are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' has no connection to Wikipedia titles). The tool description never clarifies which parameter is the title, making it impossible to know how to pass the required input. The description actually detracts from clarity rather than adding 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 a clear action: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' However, the input schema contains nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with no obvious parameter for a Wikipedia title. The description does not specify which parameter carries the title, so the stated purpose cannot be mapped to the actual interface. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like search-query-len or validate-json, which also deal with text validation.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The sibling tools cover similar validation tasks, but the description offers no routing hints, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the name.

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