Asia/Muscat clock

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that 'Task text discarded' and states it returns connection methods, giving some transparency about output and that inputs may be ignored. However, it doesn't mention any potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits, and it's unclear whether the tool makes external calls or is purely internal. It adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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

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

Two sentences, no fluff, purpose is front-loaded. The description is efficient and easy to scan. It could be slightly more structured, but it earns a high score for conciseness.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how the parameters relate to the task or what 'connection methods' look like. An agent has no guidance on which parameters to provide or what to expect in the response. The description is too vague to enable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—only noting that task text is discarded, which partially clarifies that many parameters may be ignored. It doesn't explain how parameters map to the 'task' mentioned or which parameters are actually used to find the gateway. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 finds a public pay-per-call tool gateway and returns connection methods, which is a specific verb and resource. It names example task categories (weather, search, scrape, voice) but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings like weather-hint or search-query-len, which are more direct tools. Still, the purpose is understandable.

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

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

The description gives task examples but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is a meta-tool to discover gateways, nor does it suggest when an agent should prefer it over more specific siblings. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, leaving usage implicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No browser is launched,' which is a negative claim. It does not clarify whether the tool makes network requests, performs local checks, or what side effects occur. The parameter descriptions hint at various checks (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') but the main description fails to explain the 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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified. It does not front-load key information about parameters or behavior. The brevity is not effective because it omits essential details that would help an agent use the tool correctly.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, what 'can be opened' means, or how to use the parameters. The lack of context makes it nearly impossible for an agent to know what inputs to provide or what to expect.

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 has a description, but the tool description does not explain how these parameters relate to the URL check. The parameter descriptions themselves are somewhat informative (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') but they seem to describe a different tool. The description adds no value beyond the schema and creates confusion due to the mismatch.

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: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' It also adds a distinguishing note ('No browser is launched') that separates it from playwright-url-ok. However, the input schema includes many unrelated parameters (city, json, path, zone) that are not mentioned, creating 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or conditions. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing its place among the other URL-related tools.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It implies a non-destructive, local operation (no WHOIS/ownership lookups), but does not explicitly state that no network calls occur, what the return format is, or any error behavior. For a simple split, this is partial but acceptable.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence that states the action and a key limitation. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain which parameter(s) to pass (e.g., 'host' vs 'url'), what the function returns, or how errors are handled. A minimal viable description for such a flexible tool should offer at least an example or expected output.

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 extra meaning about parameter usage, formats, or relationships; it merely restates the core purpose. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Split') and a clear resource ('a hostname into labels'), and the qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' clarifies it is purely syntactic. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or figma-url-shape, which target specific formats.

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 sibling shape-checkers. The 'without WHOIS or ownership data' hints at a pure split, but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative names, leaving the agent to infer 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it performs a HEAD request (a read-only operation) and returns only the status, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explain how it handles the various non-URL parameters, whether it makes network calls in all cases, or any side effects. The description provides some transparency but lacks depth for a tool with such a broad input 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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and output. It is concise and avoids fluff. However, it is so brief that it omits important context about the tool's broad input scope, which could mislead an agent. The conciseness is appropriate for a simple tool, but a bit more detail would make it more useful without sacrificing 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 9 optional parameters covering a wide range of unrelated inputs (URLs, city names, JSON text, timezone names, etc.) and no output schema. The description only addresses URL handling, leaving the behavior for all other input types unexplained. An agent would have no idea why a 'city' parameter exists or how it affects the status check, making the description incomplete for the tool's real 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%, and each parameter has a description in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters. For example, it does not clarify how 'city' or 'zone' feed into the status check, nor does it explain the 'discarded after' semantics beyond what the parameter descriptions already state. Since the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly, the description does not need to repeat them, but it also does not enhance understanding.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'HEAD a public URL and return status only.' This is a specific, distinctive operation that differentiates it from siblings like web-fetch (which fetches content) and normalize-url (which normalizes URLs). However, it is narrow and does not reflect the full input schema, which accepts many non-URL fields like city, json, and zone, making the stated purpose incomplete relative to the tool's actual capabilities.

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 its alternatives. The description does not mention any sibling tools, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions. The only implicit signal is the purpose itself, which suggests use when you need the HTTP status of a URL, but it fails to contrast with similar tools like browser-url-ok or web-fetch, leaving the agent to guess which to choose.

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 the action without mentioning whether it is read-only, performs network calls, validates the URL, or what happens on invalid input. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely has side effects or validation logic.

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, making it concise, but it is under-specified. It does not earn its place because it omits critical information about the tool's behavior and parameters. Conciseness is not a substitute 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the other parameters, the return value, or the conditions under which the tool should be called. An agent cannot reliably invoke 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?

The schema has 9 parameters with descriptions, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The schema descriptions are generic and some are unrelated to GitHub URL parsing (e.g., city, feed, zone). The description does not clarify which parameters are relevant, so an agent cannot determine that 'url' is the primary input. The high schema coverage does not compensate because the schema itself is misleading.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like domain-shape or figma-url-shape. However, it is terse and does not elaborate on the scope or edge cases, so it loses one point for lack of detail.

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. It does not mention that it is specifically for GitHub URLs or that other URL shape tools should be used for other domains. The agent is left to infer the appropriate 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, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that titles are discarded, but it does not explain network behavior, freshness of 'current', return format, or any side effects. This is insufficient behavioral context for a tool with no annotations.

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

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

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. 'Titles discarded' adds a meaningful behavioral boundary without wasting 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should state what the tool returns and how to invoke it. It only says it counts stories, leaving the return type, the role of the nine optional parameters, and the meaning of 'current' unspecified.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and the schema's generic parameter descriptions do not clarify which of the nine optional parameters affect the HN count, but the description is not required to compensate because coverage is high.

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

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

The description names a specific verb ('Count'), a concrete resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), and adds a scoping constraint ('Titles discarded'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, none of which count HN stories.

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 or when not to use it. The description does not mention sibling tools such as web-fetch or browser-url-ok, nor any conditions that would select this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, read-only behavior, error conditions, or what the tool returns. The parameter descriptions hint at discarded values, but the tool description itself gives no behavioral transparency.

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

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

The description is very short, but it is a fragment without a verb and lacks essential structure. It is not appropriately sized because it omits needed information while providing no clear action or outcome.

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 annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse to support correct invocation. It fails to explain output format, parameter behavior, or how this tool fits into the overall tool set.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, most parameter descriptions (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) are unrelated to the stated timezone-name purpose and seem auto-generated or misleading. The tool description adds no clarification for zone or query, leaving their exact roles ambiguous.

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, so it does not clearly state the tool's action (e.g., returns, lists, validates). It also does not distinguish this tool from sibling timezone-related tools like timezone, tz-asia-muscat, or utc-time.

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, no use-case context, and no explanation of how the parameters should be supplied. The description provides no practical direction for invocation.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns only group counts, which is a behavioral trait, but it omits critical details: whether it performs network access, what happens if robots.txt is missing, any side effects, or output format. For a tool with no 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 a single, concise sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specified, omitting essential context. Conciseness is good, but structure lacks necessary elaboration, so it is not fully effective.

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, none required, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how parameters relate to the task, what 'group counts' means, or how the tool behaves in edge cases. An agent would struggle to know which parameter to use for the robots.txt 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 coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description), but the tool description does not map any parameter to the robots.txt fetching purpose. The 'url' parameter is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which does not clearly indicate it is the robots.txt target. The schema descriptions are generic and not tailored to this tool, so the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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

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

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

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for choosing this over sibling tools. The description only states what it does, not when 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'Key discarded' but does not explain what is returned, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. The parameter descriptions mention 'discarded' inconsistently (e.g., ref, city, json) but not for all, and this does not clarify the tool's overall behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely brief (two sentences), but it omits essential details and is not front-loaded with important information. The brevity is a liability, not a strength, because it leaves the agent without the necessary context to call the tool correctly.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to clarify the intended use, input format, output, or constraints. This is a substantial gap for a tool with this complexity, making it impossible for an agent to use effectively.

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 has a description. However, these descriptions are generic and unrelated to the purported Jira key focus. They do not explain how to form a Jira key or what shape is being validated, so they add little meaning beyond the parameter names.

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

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

The description states a specific action: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' However, the input schema contains parameters like city, feed, host, zone, and query that have no obvious connection to Jira keys, making the actual purpose ambiguous. An agent cannot determine what input to supply or what the tool does with these unrelated fields.

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 its siblings (e.g., domain-shape, figma-url-shape). There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without a basis to select this tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that query and fragment are dropped—a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it explain error handling, non-HTTP inputs, or what happens if the URL is malformed. It 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, front-loaded sentence that states the core output and key drop behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple URL normalization tool, the description covers the main functional behavior (returning origin, host, path; dropping query/fragment). It does not address the 9-parameter schema's oddity (most params are irrelevant to the stated purpose), but the schema itself explains those params are discarded. An agent would likely call this tool with just a URL and get the expected result.

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 itself adds no parameter-level detail; it only mentions the conceptual operation on a URL. The schema already documents each parameter, including that many are discarded after checks, so the description neither helps nor hinders parameter understanding.

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

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

The description states a specific verb: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and clarifies what is dropped ('Query and fragment are dropped'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which check connectivity rather than normalize.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention common use cases, comparisons to siblings, or conditions under which a different normalization tool (e.g., domain-shape) might be preferred. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the query is discarded, but it does not explain why the schema includes eight additional unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone) or what happens to them. The description gives no hint about side effects, reversibility, or the stateless nature of the operation, leaving the agent uncertain about how to interact.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with the purpose stated first. No wasted words. However, it is so terse that it omits crucial context about the unused parameters, which could be considered under-specification rather than good conciseness, but the structure is still efficient.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, but the description suggests only 'query' is relevant. It does not explain why the other parameters exist or whether they are ignored, which is a significant completeness gap. An agent cannot confidently know whether it must supply all parameters or only 'query'. The absence of an output schema is acceptable, but the description fails to provide the necessary context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the core action. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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 ('Count') and resource ('characters in a search query'), which precisely matches the tool name and distinguishes it from siblings like 'memory-key-count' or 'hn-front-count'. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, constraints, or exclusions. The description only states the action without contextualizing it among the many 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 states 'Prompt discarded,' but the input schema lists nine parameters each with specific purposes (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), implying they are used for validation. This directly contradicts the schema's implications, making the behavior 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 extremely terse, but for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema, this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The two sentences waste no words, but they fail to provide essential information, making the structure inadequate.

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 (nine parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the template contains, how the parameters relate to the template, or what the return format is. An agent cannot use 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no value to parameter understanding; it actively misleads by claiming the prompt is discarded, which contradicts the detailed parameter descriptions. Instead of clarifying, it creates confusion about whether any parameter matters.

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 ('Return') and the object ('a three-step thinking template'), which is distinct from all sibling tools. However, the phrase 'Prompt discarded' introduces ambiguity about whether the input is used at all, slightly undermining 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, no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description provides zero context for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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 alone does not disclose read-only behavior, ignored parameters, output format, or error handling; the schema only hints at discarded fields.

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

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

The description is one concise sentence with no redundant words or unnecessary detail.

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

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

The description omits expected return information, invalid-timezone behavior, and the fact that only 'zone' is relevant despite the presence of many other fields.

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, including the relevant 'zone' field and 'discarded after' notes, but the tool description itself adds no extra semantic value.

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

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

The description 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like utc-time, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 related siblings such as iana-zones, tz-asia-muscat, or utc-time.

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 that most schema parameters are discarded, that the operation is read-only, or what output is returned beyond 'current local time'.

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

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

The description is a single, direct sentence focused on the tool's core function; there is no filler or redundant 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?

The tool lacks an output schema and the description omits return format, timezone source, and parameter relevance; for an agent to call it correctly, too much context is 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?

Although the schema has descriptions for every field, most fields are unrelated to a fixed timezone lookup and are described only as discarded; the description adds no clarification about which parameter matters or what the caller should pass.

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 phrase 'Current local time in Asia/Muscat' names a specific resource and implies a retrieval action, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not contrast with sibling tools like timezone or utc-time.

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 instead of timezone, utc-time, or iana-zones; no alternatives are mentioned.

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 present, the description alone is responsible for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns the current UTC timestamp but does not say whether it performs any network call, whether parameters are ignored, or what exact timestamp format is returned. The 9-parameter schema suggests no-side-effect behaviors, but the description never confirms that all parameters are 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 extremely short, which might be seen as concise, but it is under-specified for a tool that has 9 parameters and no behavioral notes. A one-line phrase wins no bonus for brevity because it omits critical context, making it 'under-specification' rather than efficient style.

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, zero annotations, and no output schema, this tool needs more explanation than it gives. The agent cannot know how parameters affect the result (if at all), what the return format is, or what handling those parameters entails. The far less than what is required to use and integrate the tool correctly.

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

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

All parameters already have descriptive schemas, with a field describing them as discarded after checking, no disk access, etc. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so it does not exceed baseline. Since schema coverage is 100%, a score 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 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the resource (UTC time) and the implied action (return the current time). It is concise and the name itself differentiates it from related timezone tools, though the description does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like 'timezone', 'iana-zones', or 'tz-asia-muscat'.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the several sibling time/zone tools. The description provides no context for prerequisite conditions, alternatives, or situations where it would be relevant. An agent is left to infer the intended use case solely from the tool name.

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 fully convey behavior. It states the body is discarded, which is a useful side-effect disclosure. However, it does not disclose the return value (e.g., boolean or error), whether other parameters are ignored, or any side effects beyond discarding the body. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 short sentence, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits essential behavioral details that a tool with this many parameters and no annotations requires. Every word is spent on the core check, but there is no structural guidance for the parameter maze.

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

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

Given the complexity (9 parameters, none required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the extraneous parameters, the expected output format, error behavior, or any usage scenario. An agent cannot reliably determine when or how to call this tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no value beyond that. It introduces a 'body' concept not present in the schema, which could mislead an agent into looking for a 'body' parameter. The other eight parameters are unexplained in the description, leaving the agent to infer which ones are relevant to JSON validation.

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 body is valid JSON.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from shape-check siblings by focusing on JSON validation rather than URL or key formats. However, the term 'body' is ambiguous relative to the actual parameter 'json', and it does not explicitly separate itself from other validation 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With 9 unrelated parameters and no required ones, an agent has no idea why it should invoke this tool over a more specific validation tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must communicate behavioral traits. It only states that the title is discarded, implying no persistence, but it does not disclose whether the tool performs a network request, its read-only nature, failure modes, or any side effects. The coverage is minimal.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences without any redundant information. It is well-structured and easy to parse, achieving high clarity in minimal 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?

The tool description falls short of contextual completeness. It does not explain how to use the nine parameters, which are all optional, nor does it describe the output or behavior. There is no information about expected input format, error conditions, or how this tool fits into the broader toolset.

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 does not map the purpose to any specific parameter. The schema contains generic parameters like 'ref', 'url', 'city', etc., with unrelated descriptions, and no explanation of which parameter should hold the Wikipedia title. The tool description adds no semantic clarity to the inputs.

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 ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists') and mentions that the title is discarded after the call. However, it fails to specify which of the nine schema parameters corresponds to the title, leaving a gap between the stated purpose and the actual input structure.

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 sibling tools like 'browser-url-ok' or 'fetch-status'. It does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or selection criteria, leaving the agent without usage context.

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