Asia/Hong_Kong clock

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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it omits other behaviors such as error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid URLs. Given the absence of annotations, the description only partially covers transparency.

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

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

The description is concise and direct, using two short sentences to convey the core functionality and a key constraint. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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

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

The description is incomplete due to the unexplained presence of three parameters (host, json, zone) that do not align with the stated purpose. It also lacks any indication of the output format or structure, leaving the tool's full behavior unclear.

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 parameter descriptions are severely misaligned with the tool's purpose. While 'url' logically fits, 'host', 'json', and 'zone' have descriptions that are unrelated to citation or HTTP status checks (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'). These descriptions mislead rather than clarify the parameters' roles.

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 function: returning host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. The note about not storing page content adds a clarifying constraint, making the purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like normalize-url or status-catalog. The note about not storing content implies a citation use case, but this is not explicit or actionable for tool 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-transparency burden. It does add a meaningful privacy guarantee by stating that no identifiers are retained, which implies a low-retention, inspection-oriented behavior. However, it does not explain whether the operation is strictly read-only, whether data is stored temporarily, or what happens to the supplied URL, host, JSON, or zone during classification.

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 words. However, the brevity comes at the expense of necessary specificity: it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The two sentences leave the core behavior undefined.

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, so the description should explain what kind of result the agent can expect, but it never mentions the output format. It also does not say whether the four optional parameters can be used together or independently, and the classification categories are left entirely implicit. Given the large sibling set and zero annotations, this is a significant 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 documents all four parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain how url, host, json, and zone relate to the classification. Because the schema does the heavy lifting, a 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 says 'Show how this request is classified' but never defines what 'classified' means, what inputs constitute a request, or what classification categories exist. The sibling list suggests URL normalization, JSON validation, and timezone tools, yet the description does not connect the tool to any of these. The phrase is too vague to distinguish 'compatibility' from its siblings.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, validate-json, citation, or timezone. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria. The privacy statement does not clarify the intended use case.

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 only mentions the split operation and the absence of WHOIS/ownership data; it does not disclose output format, error handling, side effects, or whether any network access occurs.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is concise, though the brevity leaves out operational details.

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

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

With no output schema, no annotations, four optional parameters, and ten sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value, which parameter to pass, or how invalid inputs are handled, and the unrelated parameters are left unexplained.

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 guidance and does not clarify whether 'host' or 'url' is the intended input, nor why 'json' and 'zone' appear for a hostname-splitting tool.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Split a hostname into labels.' It also adds a scope exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which helps clarify what the tool does not do. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies it is not for ownership lookups, but it names no alternative tools 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?

The description gives no indication of side effects, read-only behavior, or return behavior. With no annotations, the tool's actual behavior is completely 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 short but not effective; it omits essential information. While it is a single sentence, the brevity sacrifices clarity and leaves key aspects unexplained.

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 sibling tools include timezone, tz-asia-hong-kong, utc-time, validate-json, and normalize-url, this tool's role is unclear. No output schema is provided, and the odd parameter set makes it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

The schema parameters 'url', 'host', 'json', and 'zone' are only given generic one-word descriptions. For a tool about IANA timezone names, the relevance of 'url', 'host', and 'json' is unexplained, and 'zone' lacks format or usage details.

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' vaguely suggests a listing of timezone names, but lacks a clear verb and resource scope. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'tz-asia-hong-kong', making its purpose ambiguous.

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 intended scenarios, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only states the output granularity. It fails to explain practical behaviors such as HTTP error handling, redirects, rate limits, or why the input schema includes unrelated fields (json, zone). The mismatch between the description and schema parameters undermines transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loads the core action, which is positive. However, given that the schema has four parameters with no required fields, the single sentence omits crucial context about parameter interplay, making the tool under-specified rather than efficiently 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?

For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain what 'group counts' means, how to construct a valid request, or why the seemingly irrelevant parameters exist. An agent would be left uncertain about how to properly 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?

Although schema coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description), those descriptions are confusingly unrelated to the stated purpose (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' for a robots.txt fetcher). The description adds no clarifying context about how 'url' or 'host' are used, and it does nothing to reconcile the irrelevant parameters, so it fails to add value beyond the schema's already misleading entries.

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 ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and the output ('return group counts only'), making the tool's primary purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the unique resource (robots.txt) is distinct enough that an agent can infer its role.

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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent to guess whether this is the right tool for a given task.

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 indicates a pure transformation: returns origin, host, and path while dropping query and fragment. However, it does not explain behavior for invalid URLs or for the extra input parameters (host, json, zone) included 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 concise and well structured, using two short sentences to convey the core behavior and output. No unnecessary words or redundant details are present.

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 input schema's four parameters; it only addresses URL handling. There is no output schema or mention of return format details beyond 'origin, host, and path', leaving significant ambiguity about the extra parameters and edge 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?

The description only explains the 'url' parameter implicitly, while the schema includes four parameters: url, host, json, and zone. The descriptions for host, json, and zone are unrelated to URL normalization, and the tool description does not clarify their role or whether they are 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 tool's purpose: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and notes that query and fragment are dropped. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like validate-json or timezone, though it does not explicitly compare itself to any alternative.

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

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

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for URL normalization, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only says 'short catalog.' It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return value looks like, whether the optional inputs are actually consumed, or whether side effects exist.

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

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

The description is short, front-loaded, and contains no filler; the word 'short' even signals scope. Being under-specified is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.

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

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully support invocation. It does not explain that no parameters are required, how the parameters relate to the result, or what the returned catalog contains beyond 'common HTTP status codes.'

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 four parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no meaning to the parameters, and those parameters look unrelated to an HTTP status code catalog, but the schema itself already documents their literal 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 names the resource ('catalog of common HTTP status codes') and the content domain, which gives a basic sense of purpose. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an action statement, and it does not reconcile the catalog topic with the url/host/json/zone parameters, so an agent cannot tell whether this returns a static list or checks a URL's 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives despite siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, and iana-zones covering adjacent use cases. The agent is left to infer selection 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 behavior beyond the basic function is disclosed. The input schema includes irrelevant properties (url, host, json) with misleading descriptions, and the tool description does not clarify that only the 'zone' parameter is relevant. This lack of clarification obscures the actual expected inputs and 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, brief sentence with no extraneous content, which is concise. However, it is so terse that it omits necessary context about parameters, but for pure conciseness it earns a high score.

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 essential information: it does not specify the output format, does not explain that only the 'zone' parameter is used, and does not address the confusing extra parameters. Given the misleading schema, the description is far from complete for an agent to correctly 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?

Although every parameter has a description, three of the four descriptions (url, host, json) are clearly copied from other tools and are unrelated to timezone functionality. Only 'zone' has a correct description. This actively misleads the agent about the required and meaningful inputs, providing no useful semantic guidance beyond the parameter names.

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 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' clearly states the tool's function and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling 'utc-time' tool, which also provides a time-related output, so it misses a clear 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'utc-time' or 'iana-zones'. It neither states conditions for selection nor mentions any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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 implies a read-only operation ('current local time'), but it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, and there are no annotations to clarify safety or side effects.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words, effectively packaging the intended core function 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?

Given the mismatch between the description and the parameters, plus the absence of an output schema or any additional context, the tool is far from complete for an agent to use reliably.

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

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

The description provides no explanation of the parameters, and the schema descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') appear unrelated to returning a local time, making their purpose and usage 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 states the tool returns the current local time for Asia/Hong_Kong, but it does not explain how the provided parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to this purpose, leaving ambiguity about how to invoke it correctly.

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 like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', nor any conditions that would make it the preferred 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?

The description lacks any mention of side effects, return values, or error handling. It does not disclose how the parameters are used or whether any of them are optional, which is critical given the mismatch between the description and the parameter 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 extremely concise, which avoids verbosity, but it omits essential information about the parameters. It is not well-structured for an agent to understand the tool's contract.

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 sibling tools (e.g., 'timezone', 'iana-zones', 'validate-json'), the description is incomplete because it does not clarify how 'utc-time' differs or interact with them. The presence of unrelated parameters further exacerbates 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?

The parameter descriptions are individually clear (e.g., 'URL to normalize or cite') but they have no apparent connection to the tool's stated purpose of returning a UTC timestamp. This leaves the agent unable to infer how to set these parameters 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as returning the current UTC timestamp, but the associated parameters (url, host, json, zone) are unrelated to this purpose, creating 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 or how it should be called. There is no mention of contexts where it is preferable over sibling tools like 'timezone' or '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?

The description notes that the body is discarded, implying a non-destructive read-only operation. However, it does not clarify behavior for invalid JSON or any error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects 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 a single concise sentence with no extraneous information, efficiently conveying the core 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?

The description and schema are incongruent: the irrelevant parameters suggest this tool may be a copy-paste error, and it fails to specify which parameter is the body or how results are returned. The description is incomplete and potentially misleading for an agent.

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

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

The parameter descriptions are largely mismatched: url, host, and zone are described as relating to URL normalization, citation, and timezones, which are irrelevant to JSON validation. Only the json parameter aligns with the tool's purpose, but the presence of misleading descriptions for other parameters severely undermines clarity.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool checks whether a body is valid JSON, which matches the tool name. However, it does not explicitly identify which parameter corresponds to the body, leaving slight ambiguity.

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, nor are any prerequisites or limitations mentioned. The description is purely functional with no contextual usage hints.

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