Asia/Kuwait clock

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

The description hints at non-persistence ('Task text discarded', 'no disk access') but does not disclose real side effects, network access, authentication, or what happens when the tool succeeds or fails. The behavioral contract is largely opaque.

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

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

The description is short but not concise in a meaningful way; it introduces ambiguous terms like 'tool gateway' and 'connection methods' without definition. It lacks a clear structure that separates purpose, usage, and 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?

With no output schema, no examples, no error semantics, and no explanation of how the parameters map to the task, the description is far from complete. An agent would not know what to pass or what to expect in return.

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

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

Although the schema describes each parameter with a short label, the tool description does not explain how any of the nine parameters (e.g., 'ref', 'zone', 'path') contribute to the stated purpose. The descriptions in the schema are self-referential and mostly say what is 'discarded' or 'not accessed' rather than what the parameter actually does.

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 vaguely indicates that the tool finds a 'tool gateway' for tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice, but it does not clarify what a 'tool gateway' is or how the tool actually accomplishes this. The connection between the stated purpose and the many unrelated parameters is left entirely unspecified.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no examples. It does not mention any sibling tools or explain under what conditions this tool should be selected.

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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'Page content is not stored,' which is a useful privacy note, but it remains silent on network side effects, permission requirements, or why nine distinct input parameters exist when the description only mentions URL. The presence of many seemingly irrelevant parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) that are 'discarded' is unexplained, creating confusion about actual 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 just two sentences, front-loading the primary action and adding a privacy caveat. It is concise and without fluff, though it may be too brief given the tool's complexity. It earns a high score for economy of wording.

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

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

Despite the schema covering parameters, the description leaves many contextual gaps: it does not specify the return format, explain the purpose of the nine diverse parameters, or clarify whether all parameters are alternatives or if only 'url' matters. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent cannot confidently infer how to invoke this tool correctly beyond passing a URL.

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 meaningful description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides. Per the calibration baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameters and the description does not compound on 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 states a clear action: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that at least distinguishes it from tools like 'calc-eval' or 'think-steps'. However, it does not reference sibling tools or explain how it differs from 'fetch-status' or 'normalize-url', so it falls short of full differentiation.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent would have no explicit signal to choose this over 'fetch-status' or 'browser-url-ok'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that only a HEAD request is made and only status is returned, but it does not describe error behavior, timeout handling, or whether any content is ever fetched, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 redundant wording. It directly communicates the core operation and output in a concise manner.

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 minimal for the tool's complexity. It does not explain the nine parameters, many of which appear irrelevant, nor does it describe output format, error conditions, or how it relates to the sibling URL-checking tools. An agent would likely be uncertain about which parameters are actually needed.

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, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, and several schema descriptions (e.g., url 'to normalize or cite', ref 'discarded after shape check') seem unrelated to a HEAD status check, creating confusion rather than 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 action (HEAD request), the target (public URL), and the output (status only), which distinguishes it from tools that fetch full content. However, it does not explicitly mention why this tool exists relative to its many sibling network-checking tools.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives like web-fetch, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. The phrase 'return status only' implies a use case but does not explicitly state conditions or compare with 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that the path is discarded; it does not state what the tool returns, how invalid URLs are handled, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is very short (one sentence), but brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency. It is front-loaded but omits essential context. It earns a middle score for being free of fluff, but it lacks substance.

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 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameters to pass, what the tool does with them, or what a successful call looks like. Sibling tools suggest a family of shape-checkers, but this description does not explain the tool's role.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no clarification about which of the 9 parameters are relevant. Many parameters (city, feed, zone, etc.) seem unrelated to parsing a Figma URL, and the description does not disambiguate. It fails to add meaning beyond the generic schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Parse') and a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), and adds a behavioral note ('Path discarded'). It distinguishes from generic URL tools like normalize-url by scoping to Figma files, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 siblings like browser-url-ok or domain-shape. There is no mention of intended context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

The description does not disclose side effects, safety, rate limits, or output behavior. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to address these aspects.

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 phrase that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no unnecessary 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?

With nine parameters and no output schema, the description is far too sparse to fully guide invocation. It omits which parameter to use, expected output format, and 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 descriptions cover all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond vaguely implying a place-related 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 indicates that the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place, and the mention of Open-Meteo distinguishes it from weather, URL, and timezone siblings. However, it does not explicitly say 'get' or clarify which input parameter identifies the place.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as weather-hint or normalize-url. No use cases or conditions are provided.

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 supplied, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how invalid or non-GitHub URLs are handled, or whether any normalization or validation 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 a single, concise sentence that is easy to read. It focuses on the core action, but it lacks usage context and parameter clarification, so it is not fully optimal.

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 indication of what the parsed owner/repo result looks like, and no guidance on required inputs. The description is too minimal to give an agent complete context for invoking the tool 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 parameter descriptions are generic and inconsistent with the stated purpose. The 'url' property is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than as a GitHub URL to parse, and the other eight properties appear unrelated or are labeled 'discarded' without explaining their role. Since no parameters are required, an agent cannot confidently determine what input is 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 clearly states that the tool parses owner and repo from a GitHub URL, which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools for other domains. However, the input schema includes many unrelated optional fields, which slightly muddies the core purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as figma-url-shape, jira-key-shape, or domain-shape. There are no criteria for selecting this tool over 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Titles discarded,' which is a minor detail. It does not disclose whether the tool makes network calls, whether results are live, any side effects, or how the 9 unrelated parameters in the schema are handled. The parameter list itself is a red flag that the description should clarify, but it remains silent.

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, just two short sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, which is penalized in other dimensions but not here, where the focus is on efficient 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?

Given the tool's apparent complexity (9 mostly irrelevant parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, why the parameters exist, what 'Titles discarded' means operationally, or how to invoke it correctly. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the documentation 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the schema describes 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) that are entirely unrelated to counting HN stories. The tool description does not mention any of these parameters or explain their relevance (e.g., that they are ignored). The schema hints at 'discarded' in each parameter description, but the tool description adds no value in clarifying how an agent should populate them. This leaves the agent guessing why these parameters exist.

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') and a resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), which clearly conveys the tool's main purpose. It distinguishes from the sibling tools, none of which do HN counting. However, it could be slightly clearer about what 'count' returns (just the number?) and why 'Titles discarded' is relevant, 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what it does without situational context. An agent would have to infer applicability 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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is group counts, but not how the target robots.txt is selected, what happens on fetch failure, whether redirects are followed, or any other behavioral details.

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. Every word contributes to stating the action and output.

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, and a 9-parameter ambiguous schema, this one-sentence description is insufficient for correct invocation. It omits which parameter identifies the target robots.txt, what 'group counts' means, and error/failure 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%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no mapping between its stated purpose and the 9 optional parameters; none of the schema descriptions mentions robots.txt, leaving the agent to guess whether to pass host, url, or another field.

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

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

The description states a clear action and resource: fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts. This distinguishes it from generic fetching tools like web-fetch and fetch-status, though it leaves the source URL/host unspecified.

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 siblings such as web-fetch, fetch-status, or domain-shape. The word 'only' hints at limited output, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.

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

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

The phrase 'Key discarded' hints that the input is not stored or used beyond the check, but there is no mention of side effects, errors, or permissions. Since no annotations are present, more transparency is needed.

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

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

The description is extremely brief—one sentence—which is ideal for conciseness. Every word earns its place, though this brevity comes at the cost of essential 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?

The description is grossly incomplete: it fails to specify the required input, the expected output format, or any behavioral details. Given the complex parameter schema and lack of output schema, the tool is effectively unusable 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?

The schema lists 9 unrelated string parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) with no indication which one holds the Jira key. The description does not map any parameter to the tool's function, making it impossible to know 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 the verb 'Check' and resource 'Jira issue key shape', but it's vague about what 'shape' means (format validation? existence check?). It doesn't clearly differentiate from similar sibling tools like wiki-title-ok or domain-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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar shape-checking siblings. No conditions, examples, or alternative references are provided.

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. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error handling, network access (or lack thereof), or the fact that the tool accepts many other parameters that appear to be ignored or used for unrelated checks. This is a moderate gap given the lack of 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 extremely concise, two sentences, with the core action front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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, none required, and the description only covers the url-related behavior. It does not explain the purpose of the other parameters (e.g., city, feed, json) or how they relate to the tool's name. An agent might be confused about whether this tool performs multiple functions or simply ignores extraneous inputs. Given the complexity and lack of an output schema, 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 adds no meaning beyond the schema for the url parameter and does not clarify the roles of the other 8 parameters, which are individually described in the schema but not tied to the tool's primary function. The description adds minimal value over 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 verb ('Return') and resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL') and clarifies that query and fragment are dropped. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, which focus on status or fetching.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser-url-ok or domain-shape. It does not mention scenarios where normalization is preferred or excluded, leaving the agent 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral trait disclosed is 'No browser is launched', which is a negative constraint. It omits what happens on success/failure, whether a network request is made, and what the return value is. For a tool that likely performs some kind of check, this is insufficient.

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, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information about the tool's purpose and parameters, so it fails to earn its place. The 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?

Given the tool has 9 diverse parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a cryptic purpose, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain why parameters like city, feed, or json exist, or how they relate to checking a URL. An agent cannot reliably determine when or how to invoke this tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool's description adds no additional meaning about parameters. Per the rubric, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation; the description does not worsen or improve 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 states a clear action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds the useful clarification that no browser is launched, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, nor does it explain what 'can be opened' means (e.g., HTTP status, URL syntax, reachability). The verb and resource are present but the specificity is low.

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 description does not mention any context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess based on name alone. This is a clear gap.

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 discloses that the query is discarded, which is a useful behavioral note about data retention. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what the return value looks like, or any error conditions. More detail is needed.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded, which is good for conciseness. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations. A few more sentences clarifying the primary parameter and output would make it appropriately sized for the complexity.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no required ones, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only mentions counting characters and discarding the query. It does not specify which parameter to use, the format of the result (e.g., an integer), or any limitations. The agent lacks critical information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it does not identify which parameter is the focus (the 'query' parameter). The schema itself clarifies 'query' as 'Search text; discarded after the length check,' so the meaning is present but the description offers no additional guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Count characters in a search query.' This clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly name the 'query' parameter among the nine schema parameters, and it lacks differentiation from sibling tools beyond the name. Still, 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for a tool with many parameters.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. 'Current time' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't state whether network access is required, if any side effects exist, or what the output format is. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 wasted words, which is concise. Yet it's so sparse that it misses crucial guidance about parameter selection, so while concise, it's under-specified for this tool.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no required ones, and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how to request time (which parameter), nor the return value, nor whether other parameters are ignored. An agent is likely to misuse it, especially given the mismatched 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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description, giving a baseline of 3. However, the tool description doesn't integrate the parameters or point to 'zone' as the sole meaningful one. The presence of many unrelated parameters (ref, url, json, etc.) without explanation in the description makes it confusing and undermines parameter 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Current time in a named IANA timezone.' It distinguishes from utc-time (UTC) and tz-asia-kuwait (specific zone) by emphasizing 'named IANA timezone,' but doesn't explicitly name the distinct sibling. It lacks mention of the parameter 'zone,' which is the only relevant one in the schema.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor on which parameter to provide. The schema lists 9 unrelated parameters (url, feed, query, etc.), and the description doesn't clarify that only 'zone' should be used. An agent cannot infer correct usage from this sparse description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal that the tool ignores all input parameters (as implied by the schema descriptions saying they are 'discarded') or that it performs no side effects. The agent cannot know whether parameters are necessary, optional, or meaningless, which is a significant transparency gap.

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, which is concise, but it is so minimal that it sacrifices necessary detail. It lacks structured information such as usage examples or parameter roles. The front-loading is fine, but the brevity undermines completeness.

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, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how an agent should handle the parameters, whether they are ignored, what the response looks like, or any constraints. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly; it needs far more 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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the tool description adds nothing about parameters. Worse, the nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) appear entirely unrelated to 'Current UTC timestamp,' and the description does not clarify why they exist or that they are ignored. The schema descriptions are also cryptic ('discarded after the shape check'), so an agent cannot determine how to use them meaningfully. The description fails to compensate for this confusion.

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

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

The description states the tool returns the current UTC timestamp, which is clear and specific. It distinguishes from sibling timezone-related tools like 'timezone' and 'iana-zones' by focusing on the current time rather than conversions or zone listings. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, so it lacks a bit of action-oriented 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. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it over timezone tools or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that 'The body is discarded,' which is a useful side-effect note. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on invalid JSON (e.g., return value, error behavior), whether the tool performs any network or disk access (though some schema descriptions hint at 'no disk access'), or how the many other parameters relate to the tool's behavior. The description is too sparse to convey the tool's full behavioral profile.

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 wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. It lacks structure (e.g., no separation of purpose, usage, and behavior) and omits critical information. It is not a well-structured description, but it is not verbose either.

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 far from complete. It doesn't explain what the tool does with the other parameters (e.g., ref, url, city), what the return format is, or how the JSON validation integrates with the other fields. The schema descriptions help but don't tie the tool together. An agent would struggle to know when and how to call this tool correctly 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 is already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. The description mentions 'body' but doesn't map it to the 'json' parameter, and it doesn't explain the purpose of the other eight parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and a clear resource (JSON body). It distinguishes from sibling tools that check other shapes (e.g., domain-shape, figma-url-shape) by focusing on JSON validation. However, it doesn't clarify that the JSON input is passed via the 'json' parameter, and the presence of many unrelated parameters in the schema creates ambiguity about the tool's actual scope.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. There is no indication of when to prefer validate-json over other validation tools like browser-url-ok or file-path-ok. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and 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?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention side effects, network behavior, error cases, or the fact that most schema parameters are explicitly discarded. The param descriptions hint at ignored inputs, but the main description lacks transparency about 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 focused sentence with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently conveys 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 omits important context such as return format, units, failure modes, and parameter selection guidance. With no output schema and many irrelevant parameters, the tool description alone is not sufficient for confident invocation.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the schema includes 9 unrelated parameters and the description does not clarify that only 'city' is actually meaningful. The 'discarded' notes help somewhat, but the inclusion of irrelevant fields without explicit guidance hurts usability.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose as returning current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo, which distinguishes it from generic hint tools. It lacks an explicit verb but is still 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 does not state when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives like geo-hint, nor does it explain which input parameters are relevant. Usage must be inferred entirely from the title 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the body is discarded and that it works on public URLs, which is useful. However, it omits other behaviors like error handling, redirects, or rate limits. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the 'Body discarded' detail is concise. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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 and no output schema, but the description only covers the URL aspect. It does not explain what the other parameters do or how they fit into the tool's behavior. The return format is vaguely described as 'HTTP status and content type' without specifying structure. For a tool with this complexity, 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like city, zone, or query relate to the core 'HTTP status and content type' purpose. The description is generic and fails to tie the 9 parameters to the tool's behavior, though the schema itself is adequate.

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) and resource (public URL), and specifies the output (HTTP status and content type). It is clear about the core function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which likely serve similar purposes. The 'Body discarded' note adds specificity.

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 conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. With 27 sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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