Asia/Kamchatka clock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned but not whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or what happens on failure. The mention 'Task text discarded' is ambiguous and doesn't explain behavior beyond ignoring input.

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-loads the primary purpose. However, it is too sparse for a tool with nine parameters and no other documentation. It lacks structure and does not elaborate on the tool's operation, making it under-specified rather than well-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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of each parameter, how they contribute to finding the gateway, or the nature of the returned data. The mention of returns is vague, and the tool's overall behavior is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it does not connect any of the nine parameters to the gateway search or explain how they are used. It only notes that some input is discarded, which is not parameter-specific.

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 resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)') and what it returns (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). It is distinct from siblings, none of which mention gateway discovery. However, 'Monid' is unexplained and the verb 'Find' is somewhat generic.

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

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

The description implies the use case: use when you need a Monid gateway. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, and there are no explicit exclusions. The phrase 'Task text discarded' hints at ignoring certain input, but it doesn't clarify usage 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that page content is not stored, which is useful, but it omits critical behaviors: whether network requests are made, error handling, rate limits, or what happens with the non-URL parameters. The schema descriptions mention 'discarded after the shape check' for many fields, but the tool description doesn't explain this pattern, leaving 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words; the key output and a privacy note are front-loaded. The description is appropriately brief, though it lacks essential scope 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?

This tool has nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only covers a narrow URL-focused behavior and completely ignores the other parameters, their purpose, and how they relate. An agent cannot know what the tool actually does with city, feed, json, etc., or when to invoke it. The description is severely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 clear schema-level explanation. However, the tool description adds no meaning beyond that and directly conflicts with the schema by focusing solely on URL while many parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query) are unrelated. The description does not help an agent understand which parameters to supply or how they interact with 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL') and a key differentiator (page content not stored). However, the input schema includes nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.), which muddles the stated purpose and makes it unclear whether the tool actually does more than URL analysis. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., fetch-status, normalize-url, browser-url-ok). The description gives no use cases, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving an agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and short description 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool performs a HEAD request and returns status, without mentioning side effects, error behavior, rate limits, or what happens to the other parameters (though the schema notes they are 'discarded'). This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with nine optional inputs.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler, making it concise and front-loaded. However, given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the brevity borders on under-specification, though it still earns a high score for efficiency.

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

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

The description is incomplete for a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It doesn't explain what the 'status' output looks like, how the other parameters influence behavior, or any use context. The mismatch between the description and the schema leaves significant gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema; it only implicitly refers to 'url'. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description provides no additional semantic value.

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

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

The description states a specific operation ('HEAD a public URL and return status only'), but the schema lists 9 parameters, many of which (city, zone, query, json, path, etc.) are unrelated to URL HEAD requests. This mismatch muddies the purpose; it's clear for the URL case but doesn't explain the other parameters, so the description is only partially clarifying the tool's scope.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, or normalize-url. It doesn't mention any exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states only that it parses owner and repo, but gives no information about error handling (invalid URLs), return format, side effects, or whether it is read-only. It also does not clarify that the 'url' parameter is the primary input, nor why the schema includes unrelated parameters like 'city' and 'feed'. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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

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

The tool is simple but has 9 parameters, many of which are irrelevant to its stated purpose (e.g., 'city', 'feed', 'host'). The description does not explain why these parameters exist or how they interact with the core function. Additionally, there is no output schema, so the agent is left without information on what the tool returns (e.g., an object with owner and repo). Given the complexity introduced by the extra parameters and the lack of output details, the description is 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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it only refers to 'a GitHub URL' without elaborating on the 'url' parameter. The schema's description for 'url' says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which is somewhat inconsistent with the tool's purpose of parsing owner and repo. The description does not compensate for this discrepancy, so it remains at baseline.

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

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

The description is specific: 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.' It clearly names the verb (parse), the resource (owner and repo), and the input type (GitHub URL). It distinguishes itself from other shape tools like figma-url-shape or jira-key-shape by focusing on GitHub URLs. The purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention when it should be preferred over other shape parsers (e.g., domain-shape, normalize-url) or any exclusion criteria. The use case is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only notes 'Key discarded,' implying no persistence, but does not state whether it is read-only, makes network calls, or what the return format is. The schema descriptions of some parameters also mention 'discarded,' but the tool description itself is minimal.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences that state the purpose and a disposal note. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, though it still earns a high score for conciseness.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what 'shape' means, which parameter is the key, what the result indicates, or any operational details. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on this description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents each parameter individually. However, the tool description does not map any parameter to the 'key' it checks, and the schema contains many unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) that have no clear connection to Jira keys. This creates confusion about which parameter to pass, and the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Check a Jira issue key shape') with a clear verb and resource. It is not a tautology and implies a format validation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling shape-checking tools like 'github-repo-shape' or 'domain-shape', and the term 'shape' is ambiguous. Still, the core purpose is identifiable.

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 conditions, exclusions, or reference any sibling tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and purpose.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions 'Body discarded', which indicates the response body is ignored, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what HTTP statuses are returned, rate limits, or side effects. The description also omits how the unrelated parameters (city, zone, etc.) are handled, leaving behavioral expectations 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 extremely brief—one sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It lacks structure and front-loads a narrow use case while ignoring the tool's actual parameter diversity. Conciseness should not sacrifice essential information; here it does.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the tool beyond a single narrow case, does not mention which parameters are relevant to which scenarios, and provides no information about return values or errors. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool for most of its declared parameters.

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 basic description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not contradict the schema either. According to the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema covers all parameters and the description does not add extra context. The mismatch between the description's narrow focus and the broad parameter list is not a parameter semantics issue per se, but it does not enhance understanding.

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

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

The description states 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL' which implies a narrow purpose, but the input schema lists 9 diverse parameters (city, zone, query, etc.) unrelated to library docs. This mismatch makes the actual purpose ambiguous and fails to distinguish it from siblings like 'fetch-status' or 'browser-url-ok'. It is not a tautology but is vague and misleading about 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., 'fetch-status', 'normalize-url', 'domain-shape'). The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers. An agent cannot determine if this is the right tool for a given task based on the description 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which gives no insight into what happens with the parameters, what the return format is, or any side effects. The parameter descriptions in the schema hint at discarding, but the tool description itself is 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 a single sentence, but it is under-specified. It lacks structure and front-loads nothing useful. It is not a case of efficient conciseness but rather insufficient specification.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot know what the tool returns, how to invoke it correctly, or what parameters are actually needed. It fails to provide essential operational 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a detailed description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), so the schema is informative. However, the tool description does not connect these parameters to the catalog purpose, leaving the agent to wonder why they exist. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description says 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which names a resource but doesn't explain how the 9 optional parameters relate to it. It fails to distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or domain-shape, leaving the agent guessing what the tool actually does.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of conditions, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between status-catalog and fetch-status.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention that all 9 parameters are also discarded, nor what the template actually contains or any output format. The disclosure is partial.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it may sacrifice clarity, but for a simple tool it is appropriately sized.

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 and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what happens to the parameters, whether they are ignored, or what the returned template looks like. An agent could easily misunderstand that the parameters matter. The description fails to cover essential 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides; it does not even mention the parameters. It neither enhances nor degrades the schema's 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 returns a three-step thinking template, giving a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is slightly ambiguous but does not obscure the core purpose. It is distinct enough from sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from them.

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 conditions, exclusions, or related tools. The implication is that it is for thinking templates, but that is not explicit.

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