Asia/Manila clock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Returns connection methods' and mentions discarded inputs, but leaves side effects, costs, error behavior, and actual processing steps 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 overall description is short and front-loaded, and the parameter descriptions are compact. However, the brevity contributes to ambiguity rather than providing a clear, well-structured usage model.

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

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

There is no output schema, and the text does not explain the return format, expected inputs in combination, error cases, or how the listed parameters relate to the requested gateway. The tool is not self-contained enough for correct invocation.

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

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

Though every parameter has a schema description, the descriptions are mostly negative or discard-oriented ('discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access', 'length check'), leaving unclear why these parameters exist or how they influence the returned connection methods.

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 ('Find') and a resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway'), with example task types, but the meaning of 'gateway', 'connection methods', and 'tool index' is vague and not clearly distinguished from sibling tools.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like weather-hint, search-query-len, or normalize-url. The description implies task categories but does not state 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 does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as idempotency, error handling, or rate limits. With no annotations provided, this omission is a significant 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb. It is appropriately short, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail about parameter usage.

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 large number of parameters and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'status' means, how the response will be structured, or which parameter to pass as the 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?

The input schema includes 9 parameters with descriptions that seem unrelated to the stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name', 'IANA timezone name'). The main description does not clarify which parameter should be used for the URL, adding confusion rather than meaningful guidance.

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 ('HEAD') and target ('public URL'), but it does not specify which parameter holds the URL. This ambiguity is compounded by the input schema's unrelated parameter descriptions, and there is no distinction from sibling tools like web-fetch or browser-url-ok.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any comparison, context, 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 only behavioral detail is 'Path discarded', which hints that the URL path is ignored, but it does not disclose whether the tool performs network access, returns a shape object, or has side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides insufficient detail.

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

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

The description is extremely short and contains no fluff, making it easy to read. The brevity is acceptable, though it sacrifices useful context that could be included without much extra length.

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 return-value explanation, no error semantics, and no mention of which parameter is actually used. The tool is under-specified for an agent to use reliably, especially given the confusing 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?

The schema lists nine unrelated parameters, and most descriptions are generic or explicitly say they are discarded. The 'url' description says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which does not match the Figma-specific purpose, and there is no clear mapping between the tool intent and the parameters.

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

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

The description identifies the target resource ('Figma file URL') and a clear operation ('Parse'), so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it does not explain what kind of parsed result is produced or how this tool differs from sibling URL/shape 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, domain-shape, or github-repo-shape. The description also does not mention required inputs, limitations, or failure conditions.

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, external API calls, read-only behavior, or failure modes. The phrase 'via Open-Meteo' hints at network usage but is not explicit.

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 front-loads the primary output. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 and no output schema, the description is too thin for an agent to know what input to provide or what to expect. It does not explain parameter relationships, required fields, or return format.

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

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

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, and some parameter descriptions (e.g., ref, query) seem unrelated to latitude/longitude without further context.

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 provides latitude and longitude for a place using Open-Meteo. It is specific enough to distinguish the core output, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'returns'.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as weather-hint or normalize-url. The description implies geocoding use but does not state conditions or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that titles are discarded, implying the tool ignores titles, but it does not disclose side effects, network behavior, rate limits, or what happens with the input parameters. The schema descriptions hint that parameters are discarded, but the tool description itself is silent on behavior beyond the count.

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 front-loads the primary action. It is efficient with no filler, but it lacks structural detail such as parameter explanation or usage context. It earns a high score for conciseness but not for 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?

With 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (just a number?), how parameters are used (if at all), or any edge cases. An agent would be uncertain about expected inputs and outputs, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly.

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

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

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, but these descriptions are generic and indicate that parameters are discarded (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no meaning about how parameters affect the count. The baseline of 3 is not met because the schema descriptions are not informative for this tool's purpose, and the tool description does not compensate.

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: counting current Hacker News front-page stories. It specifies the verb 'count' and the resource 'Hacker News front-page stories', and the note 'Titles discarded' adds specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like web-fetch or browser-url-ok, which focus on fetching or checking URLs.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would not know if this is the right tool for a given task without additional context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavior beyond the vague phrase. It does not mention side effects, return values, error handling, or how parameters might be used or discarded.

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, but it is too terse and lacks a verb or action. It does not effectively structure the tool's behavior or provide a clear, informative overview.

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

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

With nine optional, unrelated-looking parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand when or how to call the tool. It does not explain the role of any parameter or what the response would look like.

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 covers all nine parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is met, but the tool description itself adds no clarification. Many schema descriptions, such as 'discarded after the shape check' or 'no disk access', are unrelated to the stated timezone-name purpose and leave parameter semantics confusing.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase—'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls'—with no verb or explicit action, so it is unclear whether the tool lists, returns, or validates zone names. The title is absent, and the only available clue is the tool name and the phrase, which is not enough to specify the purpose.

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

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the sibling tools, such as timezone or tz-asia-manila. There is no mention of conditions, alternatives, or exclusions.

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. It claims to 'fetch' but does not explain what happens on failure, whether it is a shape check rather than a real fetch, or any side effects. The output 'group counts only' is ambiguous regarding format.

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 under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the purpose but omits essential usage and context, so it does not earn its place fully.

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 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain which parameter to use, what the return value looks like, or how it differs from other fetch/shape tools.

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 parameters are documented. However, the description does not indicate which of the 9 parameters is relevant (likely 'url' but not stated), nor does it add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because schema covers all fields.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('robots.txt'), and outcome ('return group counts only'). This is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like web-fetch or fetch-status, though it does not explicitly name an 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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or web-fetch. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., URL must be public) or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: 'Key discarded' indicates the input is not retained. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (e.g., a boolean, a normalized key, or an error), or any side effects. The mention of 'discarded' adds a small amount of transparency, but significant behavior remains undisclosed, so the score reflects partial 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 two short sentences, highly concise and front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary words and states the core function immediately. While it may be too sparse for full clarity, it is efficient in structure and length.

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 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the expected return value, how the shape check is performed, or how to select among the many parameters. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional context. The description is 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?

While schema descriptions cover all 9 parameters (100% coverage), the tool's description does not link the 'Jira issue key' concept to any specific parameter. The schema lists parameters like ref, url, city, and so on, none of which are obviously a 'key'. The agent cannot determine which parameter to supply for the shape check. The description fails to clarify this mapping, making parameter selection ambiguous despite the schema's per-parameter 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 states a specific verb and resource: check the shape of a Jira issue key. It is not a tautology and clearly indicates the tool's focus. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling shape-checking tools (e.g., domain-shape, figma-url-shape), relying on the tool name for distinction. Overall, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand the basic function.

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 neither mentions conditions for use nor exclusions. Sibling tools like domain-shape or figma-url-shape exist, but the description gives no criteria for choosing this one. This leaves the agent to infer usage context 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Body discarded,' which conveys a key behavior (only status is returned). However, it omits error handling, authentication needs, or any side effects. The description gives minimal transparency but not a complete profile for an unannotated tool.

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

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

One sentence, no fluff, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise and to the point, but the brevity comes at the cost of 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?

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers a narrow use case (library docs URL) while ignoring the rest of the schema. An agent has no way to understand what the tool actually does with the other parameters or when to use them. This is a severe gap for a tool of this 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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions exist, but the tool description ignores them entirely. The description mentions only a 'URL' yet the schema has 9 parameters (city, feed, json, zone, query, etc.) that seem unrelated to 'public library docs URL.' This mismatch provides no help in selecting or using the right parameter for a given task, and may actively mislead an agent into thinking only URL is relevant.

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 (HTTP status) and a resource (public library docs URL). It distinguishes by resource type, but does not differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch. The verb-object pair is clear enough for an agent to grasp the core intent, though not uniquely distinguishing.

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 over alternatives. Sibling tools include fetch-status, normalize-url, browser-url-ok, etc., and the description provides no exclusions or conditions. An agent cannot infer which tool to invoke for a given URL without additional reasoning.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses one key trait, that no browser is launched, but it does not say whether network access occurs, whether the operation is read-only, what side effects might happen, or what the return value represents. For a tool that checks URL operability, not clarifying whether it actually hits the network or only validates shape is a significant omission.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It gets the core action out immediately and adds the behavioral qualifier second. The brevity is a strength, even if content elsewhere is sparse.

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, no annotations, and a potentially ambiguous operation, a single sentence is insufficient. The description does not explain which parameters are used, what the tool actually checks (network? syntax?), what it returns, or how it is distinct from other sibling checkers. There is clear information an agent would need before reliable invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so according to the rubric baseline is 3 even though the tool description itself mentions no parameters. The schema descriptions for each property provide enough per-parameter meaning, though several include odd additions ('discarded after the shape check') that are not reconciled with the tool's 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 clear action: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' The additional clause 'No browser is launched' distinguishes it from sibling browser-url-ok, which presumably does launch a browser. However, 'can be opened' is vague compared to explicit alternatives like fetch-status or normalize-url; it could mean URL syntax validation, DNS reachability, or HTTP success.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. The only hint is 'No browser is launched,' which implies it may be preferable in contexts avoiding browser overhead, but it never names sibling tools or states conditions for exclusion. The onus is entirely on the agent to infer a difference from 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the query is discarded, but does not explain the behavior with the other 8 parameters, whether it returns a count, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with such a broad 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 short and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure and does not front-load key information about the tool's broader behavior, making it less effective than it could be.

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, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the other parameters, what the tool returns, or any side effects. An agent cannot confidently 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 description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 verb (count) and resource (characters in a search query), which distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools. However, it does not specify the output format or clarify what constitutes a 'search query' in this context, leaving some 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. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or any context that would help an agent decide between this and 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 disclose behavior. It only states that a catalog exists but does not explain what happens when called, what the output is, whether parameters affect the result, or any side effects. The mismatch between the described purpose and the parameter list adds further opacity.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks structure, fails to front-load any actionable information, and omits critical details about the tool's operation.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the purpose, the role of parameters, or the expected return value. An agent cannot reliably decide to invoke this tool based on this description.

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-related meaning—it does not mention any of the nine parameters or how they map to the catalog. It neither contradicts nor enriches the schema, so the baseline 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 is a noun phrase ('Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') rather than a verb+resource statement. It does not say what the tool does with the catalog or how it relates to the nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.), which are entirely unrelated to HTTP status codes. This creates confusion rather than clarity and does not distinguish it from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. The description provides no context about the intended use case, 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the prompt is discarded, but does not mention side effects, safety (read-only vs. mutating), or what happens to the input parameters. The tool appears to return a static template, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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

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

The description is extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it is under-specified, lacking any detail about the template's structure or usage. It is concise but not necessarily well-structured for an agent's needs.

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 incomplete. It does not explain what the 'three-step thinking template' looks like, how it should be used, or what the agent should expect as a return value. The tool's purpose is clear only at a high level, but operational details are missing.

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. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only implies input is discarded. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics, and the description does not detract from 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 specific action ('Return a three-step thinking template') with a clear resource. It is distinct from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with them. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds a note about input handling but doesn't clarify what the template contains.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer its purpose 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. It only states the output, but does not mention that many input parameters are ignored (as hinted by the schema's 'discarded' notes), whether it makes network calls, or its read-only nature. The schema itself suggests additional behaviors not reflected in the description.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and to the point, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description is grossly insufficient to convey which parameters matter, what output format to expect, or how it interacts with the sibling tools. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly based solely on the description.

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

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

While the schema provides 100% description coverage for parameters, the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not highlight that 'zone' is the primary parameter, and the presence of nine unrelated parameters (e.g., ref, url, city) without explanation in the description creates confusion about which ones are relevant to the timezone operation.

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

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

The description 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' clearly states a specific action (get current time) and resource (named IANA timezone), distinguishing it from siblings like utc-time (no zone name) and iana-zones (list zones). It is concise and 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 such as utc-time or tz-asia-manila. It does not mention exclusions or alternative selection criteria, 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. It states 'Current local time' but does not explain that the tool likely ignores most input parameters (as implied by the schema's 'discarded' notes) or that it is read-only. No side effects, return format, or error behavior is disclosed, leaving the agent uncertain about what happens when it calls the tool with various parameters.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence), which is concise in length but under-specified. It front-loads the core purpose but omits essential usage details. The brevity is appropriate for a trivial tool, but given the complex schema, it is insufficiently informative.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a one-line statement of purpose. It fails to explain how to invoke the tool, which parameters are required or optional, what the return value looks like, or any constraints. This is severely incomplete for a tool with such a rich schema, leaving the agent unable to use it 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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds no meaning beyond them. It does not indicate which parameter(s) are relevant to obtaining the time, despite the schema including a 'zone' parameter. The description fails to clarify whether the tool uses any parameter at all or if it simply returns the fixed timezone's current time. This leaves the agent guessing how to structure the call.

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: 'Current local time in Asia/Manila.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like 'utc-time' and 'timezone' by specifying the timezone. However, it does not mention any parameters or how they relate to the output, which slightly detracts from 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'timezone' and 'iana-zones' exist, but there is no mention of the conditions that would select this tool over them. No context about required parameters or typical use cases is given.

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

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

The description states that the body is discarded, which gives some insight into non-persistence. However, it does not disclose the return format, whether it throws errors for invalid JSON, or any side effects. With no annotations, this leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's operational 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 concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence to convey the core action. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and clearly states the primary purpose. The statement 'The body is discarded' adds a brief behavioral note without bloating the description.

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 important context such as the output format (boolean, error message), expected input shape, and behavior on invalid JSON. It does not explain why the other schema parameters exist or how they relate to the validation process. This makes the tool significantly under-specified for an agent to use with confidence.

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, many descriptions are unrelated to JSON validation (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'City name for a public weather hint'). The 'json' parameter description is relevant, but the presence of numerous extraneous fields confuses the tool's actual input expectations. The high schema coverage does not compensate for the semantic mismatch between the parameters and 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 clearly states the tool's action: checking whether a body is valid JSON. The verb 'check' and object 'valid JSON' are specific, and the sentence is easy to understand. However, it refers to a 'body' while the schema parameter is named 'json', creating 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?

The description implies the tool is for JSON validation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other validation-related siblings. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or a recommendation against alternative tools. The usage context is mostly inferred from the tool name and 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?

The note 'Body discarded' reveals one behavioral limitation, but other significant aspects are omitted: error handling, redirect policy, timeout behavior, or the fact that only public URLs are accepted. Since annotations are empty, the description bears full burden, and this minimal disclosure 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 itself is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. However, the structure of the full tool definition is cluttered by the long list of irrelevant parameters, which undermines the clarity gained from the short description. The description alone is efficient but incomplete.

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

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

The tool definition is contextually incoherent. It mixes parameters for unrelated domains (weather, RSS, file paths, timezones, JSON validation) without explaining their relevance. There is no indication of what the parameters do in relation to fetching a URL, nor what 'discarded' or 'hint' means. This leaves an agent unable to correctly construct a call.

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

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

The parameter descriptions are largely unrelated or misleading. For example, 'city' is described as a 'weather hint' and 'query' as a 'length check', both discarded after the call. These do not align with the tool's stated purpose of fetching HTTP status and content type for a URL. The 'url' parameter description ('normalize or cite') is also inconsistent. This fails to clarify how parameters are used in the context of web-fetch.

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 behavior: 'HTTP status and content type for a public URL. Body discarded.' This identifies the primary action and response content. Slight ambiguity remains regarding how it differs from sibling tools like fetch-status, but the purpose is sufficiently explicit.

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

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

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus others (e.g., fetch-status, browser-url-ok), nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions for calling it. 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Title discarded after the call,' which hints at statelessness but does not explain side effects, permissions, or return values. The description is too sparse to convey the tool's actual behavior, and the mention of 'Title' conflicts with the schema's parameter set.

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—one sentence—which is good for front-loading. However, it is under-specified and does not structure information in a way that helps the agent. It is short but lacks essential context, so it is not appropriately informative.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between the parameters and the claimed function, nor does it provide any usage context or expected behavior. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the given information.

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

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

The description adds no meaning to any of the nine parameters. Although the schema provides descriptions for each parameter (100% coverage), these descriptions are unrelated to Wikipedia titles (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name'). The description fails to explain how parameters like 'url' or 'query' relate to the tool's stated purpose, leaving the agent without usable guidance.

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

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

The description states a clear purpose: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' This is specific and action-oriented. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'domain-shape' or 'file-path-ok', and more importantly, the input schema contains no 'title' parameter, making the intended usage ambiguous. The mismatch between the description and schema undermines 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools. An agent has no basis for selecting this over similar check tools.

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