Asia/Nicosia clock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add some behavioral value: it says the tool returns connection methods and that task text is discarded. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, whether external paid calls are made, rate limits, or other side effects, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then states the return value and a privacy-relevant behavior, making it optimally sized given that parameter details live in the schema.

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 does not explain how the 9 input parameters relate to the task categories, what a 'connection method' actually looks like, or which parameters to populate for a weather versus search task. With no output schema and many siblings, an agent lacks enough context to invoke this tool confidently.

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%, and each of the 9 parameters has its own explanation in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level guidance about how to choose among city, query, feed, etc., but that information already exists in the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Find') and a concrete resource ('a public pay-per-call tool gateway'), gives task examples, and names the return value ('connection methods'). It is clear enough to distinguish this index-like tool from the direct sibling tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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

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

The phrase 'for a task such as weather, search, scrape, or voice' provides clear context for when an agent should consider this tool. It does not offer exclusions or name alternatives, so it falls short of the ideal, but the usage context is present.

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 only states that no browser is launched, but does not explain what network actions occur, what happens to the input parameters, or what 'can be opened' means. The parameter descriptions mention 'discarded', but the overall behavior remains opaque.

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

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

The description is concise at two sentences, which is good for brevity, but it is under-specified and lacks any structure to convey necessary context. It is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of essential information, so it is not appropriately sized.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. An agent cannot infer how to invoke the tool correctly, what inputs are relevant, what outputs to expect, or how it differs from the many siblings. The description fails to provide even minimal context for correct usage.

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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the schema descriptions themselves are contradictory to the tool's purpose (e.g., a git ref for checking a URL). The tool description adds no semantic clarification, and the parameter names and descriptions suggest a multi-purpose validator rather than a simple URL check, making the 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 states a specific action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') but is ambiguous about what 'opened' means and how it relates to the 9 parameters, which include unrelated fields like city, json, and zone. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, leaving the agent uncertain about its exact 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains many URL-related tools (fetch-status, web-fetch, normalize-url, playwright-url-ok), but the description offers no comparison or selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Expression discarded' without explaining side effects, return values, or constraints. The tool's actual behavior (likely a shape or format check) is entirely undisclosed.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits critical context and does not earn its place by clarifying the tool's purpose or 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does with the parameters, what it returns, or how it fits into the broader toolset, leaving an agent with no basis to call it correctly.

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

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

The schema covers all 9 parameters with individual descriptions, but the tool description adds no clarification on how they relate to the claimed arithmetic operation. The description is actively confusing, providing zero semantic value beyond the schema and failing to bridge 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 claims the tool evaluates arithmetic expressions, but the input schema contains parameters for URLs, cities, timezones, and other unrelated data. This mismatch makes the actual purpose unclear and misleading; an agent cannot infer what the tool really does from the description.

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 many siblings. No context is given about which scenarios call for this tool, and the arithmetic description does not align with any of the parameter purposes.

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 adds one behavioral fact beyond the schema: 'Page content is not stored,' which is a useful privacy cue. Since no annotations are present, the description still carries the full burden, and it does not clarify network access, error behavior, whether other input fields are ignored, or any side effects. With no annotations, this partial transparency is only moderately adequate.

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 compact, using two short sentences to state the core functionality and a key privacy attribute. There is no filler or redundancy, and the primary behavior is effectively front-loaded.

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 a description that mentions only the URL behavior, the definition is incomplete. An agent cannot know what to expect if it passes ref, city, feed, json, host, path, zone, or query, nor how these discarded values relate to the returned host/scheme/status. The description is likely far too narrow for a tool whose schema exposes many other inputs.

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 has 100% description coverage, but each parameter is described individually with 'discarded' language. The tool description does not connect those disparate parameters to its stated core function, nor does it clarify whether the URL parameter is required when other parameters are used. The schema provides the details, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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

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

The description states a specific deliverable (host, scheme, HTTP status for a URL) and explicitly notes that page content is not stored, which is more concrete than the tool name alone. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch, and the 9-parameter schema hints at a broader purpose the description omits.

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 phrase 'for a URL' implies the tool is appropriate when the agent needs host/scheme/status information from a URL. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternative sibling tools, and no indication of how to handle URL normalization or validation before calling. Usage context is only minimally supplied.

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, but it only says 'No identifiers are retained,' a privacy note. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, how data is processed, or what the return value looks like. The 'shape check' implication is only in parameter descriptions, not the tool 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 extremely short (two sentences), but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It lacks essential information about what the tool does and how to use it. The first sentence is vague, and the second is a privacy disclaimer that could be in annotations.

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 heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not specify what classification categories exist, how to interpret the result, or which parameter to provide for a given intent. An agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool 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%, and each parameter has a description that adds context (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access'). However, the tool description does not integrate these parameters or explain how they relate to the classification outcome. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work, but the description adds no cross-parameter meaning.

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

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

The description says 'Show how this request is classified' but never defines what 'classified' means, what input is expected, or what output is produced. It does not name a specific resource or operation, and it is not distinguishable from sibling shape-check tools without inspecting the schema.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools (e.g., domain-shape, file-path-ok, validate-json). The agent is left to guess whether this is a catch-all or a specific classifier. No alternatives or exclusions 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, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions the absence of WHOIS/ownership data, implying no external lookup, but does not clarify other side effects (e.g., network usage, error handling, return format). This is a thin disclosure for a tool with 9 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action and a key limitation in an efficient manner, earning its place.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, but the description only covers hostname splitting. It does not clarify the role of the other parameters, what the tool returns, or any error cases. An agent would struggle to know how to use this effectively beyond the simplest case.

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 defined in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the simple action, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not explain why some parameters exist (e.g., city, query) or how they relate to the hostname splitting.

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 ('Split'), a resource ('hostname'), and the outcome ('into labels'), and explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data, which distinguishes it from domain‐lookup siblings. This is precise and differentiates the tool's role even without naming alternatives.

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

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. It only states a negative (no WHOIS/ownership) but does not name alternative tools or conditions (e.g., 'use for label extraction; use fetch-status for connectivity'). Context is minimal.

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 all behavioral disclosure. It only mentions HEAD and status return, omitting what happens for the many other parameters (city, json, feed, etc.) that appear in the schema. This creates confusion about whether those parameters affect the HEAD request or are simply ignored, and it doesn't disclose error handling, redirects, or output 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, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It efficiently states the action, target, and result without redundant phrasing.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters interact, what the 'status' represents (HTTP code? boolean?), or what an agent should expect as a return value. The mismatch between the narrow description and the broad parameter set leaves too much to inference.

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 minimal value beyond clarifying that 'url' is the primary target for the HEAD request; it does not explain the purpose of the other parameters, which are all documented in the schema but whose interplay is unclear.

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

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

The description states a specific verb (HEAD), a resource (public URL), and a precise outcome (return status only). It clearly differentiates from siblings like web-fetch or browser-url-ok, which fetch content or check availability differently.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like web-fetch or playwright-url-ok. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the path is discarded, but says nothing about whether the operation is local or network-based, what it returns, or whether it has side effects. The behavior is opaque beyond the one stated detail, so the score is low.

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, using only two sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, which detracts from its value, but in terms of conciseness and structure (no redundancy, clear ordering), it is 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?

This tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only mentions the 'url' parameter. It does not explain how the other parameters are used, what the tool returns, or when it succeeds or fails. The description is profoundly incomplete for the tool's actual 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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the parameter descriptions are generic and unrelated to the tool's stated purpose: they cover weather, RSS, IANA zones, etc., while the tool description focuses solely on Figma URLs. The description does not help map parameters to meaning, and the schema descriptions themselves are not aligned with the tool's apparent function, reducing clarity substantially.

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 ('parse') and a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), and mentions a key behavior ('Path discarded'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like normalize-url and browser-url-ok. However, it does not clarify what 'parse' entails (e.g., structure extraction, validation, or component splitting), leaving the exact purpose slightly ambiguous.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or github-repo-shape. There is no mention of exclusions, preconditions, or comparisons to siblings. The only hint is the name and the mention of Figma, but that's implicit, not explicit.

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 entire behavioral burden falls on the description. 'No disk access' is a meaningful disclosure that the tool does not inspect the filesystem, but the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean), whether it performs any other I/O, or what 'safe' means in terms of validation rules.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful behavioral constraint. In terms of word count and arrangement, it is appropriately succinct.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently use all allowed inputs. It covers only the path case and gives no indication of how the other parameters relate to the call, whether they are mutually exclusive, or what successful invocation looks 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a concrete description (e.g., 'File path to check; no disk access', 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'), so the system fills most of the semantic gap. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema for the non-path parameters, which is the baseline expectation at this coverage level.

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 action ('Check whether a path') and resource ('a path'), so it is not just a tautology. However, the input schema exposes eight other parameter kinds (url, city, json, zone, query, etc.), and the description says nothing about them, making the tool's actual purpose ambiguous and potentially misleading.

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 line 'No disk access' implies this is a pure shape check rather than a filesystem validation, which is a useful usage hint. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, so an agent has to infer the scope mostly from the name and schema.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the data source (Open-Meteo) and that it returns coordinates, but does not explain network dependence, error handling, rate limits, or what happens with the various input parameters. The behavior of the tool is largely opaque, especially since parameters like 'discarded after the shape check' are only in the schema, not 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 concise, being a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is not well-structured for agent use: it lacks front-loaded key details such as required parameters or typical usage patterns. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, so it earns a 3.

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 ones, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke the tool correctly, which parameter to use for the place, what the response looks like, or any constraints. An agent would struggle to use this tool without additional context, so a 2 is warranted.

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% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it does not indicate which parameter corresponds to 'a place' (likely city or query, but not specified). The description adds minimal value over the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, identifying the core function and data source. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like weather-hint or timezone, which could also involve geographic context. The purpose is clear but not explicitly differentiated from related 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of suitable input types, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool (e.g., weather-hint) would be preferred. The agent is left to infer usage from the description alone, which is insufficient for a tool with 9 optional parameters.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as return format, error handling, or that it discards unused parameters. It only restates the core action without adding any transparency beyond the tool name.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. It lacks essential context and reads more like an under-specification than a well-structured concise description. While it is not verbose, it fails to earn its place by omitting crucial 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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is completely inadequate. The agent has no information about what the tool returns, how it handles invalid inputs, or which parameters are relevant. This fails the completeness bar 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?

The description does not mention any parameters, but the input schema covers all 9 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('parse') and resource ('GitHub URL') and the expected output ('owner and repo'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like figma-url-shape and jira-key-shape by scoping to GitHub.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions for use, prerequisites, or exclusions. The implied context from the name and description is weak and relies on the agent inferring the appropriate use case.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that titles are discarded, but omits critical behaviors: whether it performs network access, what the return value is (a count? a structure?), any rate limits, or side effects. The parameter descriptions hint at discard behavior (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), but the main description fails to mention these.

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 no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it may be too terse, omitting essential context, but as a matter of conciseness it earns a 4.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters are used, when to call it, or what 'titles discarded' means for the output. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based solely 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 itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Moreover, the parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) seem unrelated to the stated purpose of counting HN stories, creating a disconnect. The description does not help an agent understand how these parameters affect the tool's behavior.

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: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' This is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like fetch-status or web-fetch. The phrase 'Titles discarded' adds a useful hint about output scope. However, it doesn't clarify how the nine optional parameters relate to this counting purpose, which slightly muddies the 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent would have no idea whether to pick this over fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or other tools without further 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 of disclosing behavior. It only states a vague purpose and gives no information about side effects, data returned, errors, or processing details. The term 'discarded' in some parameter descriptions hints at non-persistence, but the description itself is silent on 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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides almost no actionable information and does not front-load any useful details. Every sentence is vague and fails to earn its place.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot determine what inputs are required, what the tool returns, or how to invoke it correctly. The mismatch between the description and the parameter list makes the tool effectively unusable.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a short description, the tool description does not explain how these disparate parameters relate to each other or to the stated purpose. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it fails to clarify why URL, JSON, path, etc. are relevant to IANA timezone 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 is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') with no verb or action. It does not state what the tool does (e.g., list, validate, or resolve zones), and the 9 heterogeneous parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) bear no obvious relation to timezone names, making the purpose misleading.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'timezone', 'tz-asia-nicosia', or 'utc-time'. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess 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 carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that only group counts are returned and implies a read-only network fetch, but it does not mention error cases, non-robots content, network requirements, or any side effects.

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

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

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential purpose and output restriction efficiently.

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?

Without an output schema, annotations, or any indication of required versus optional parameters, the description is incomplete. The nine unrelated optional parameters and no mention of the output structure leave an agent unable to reliably invoke the tool.

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

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

Although all nine parameters have descriptions, they appear mismatched to the tool: 'ref' is a Git ref, 'city' is a weather hint, 'json' is validation text, and 'zone' is an IANA timezone. These descriptions do not clarify which parameter identifies the robots.txt and actively confuse the caller.

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

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

The description states a specific action and resource: fetch a public robots.txt file and return only group counts. It is distinguishable from generic tools like web-fetch and fetch-status, but the lack of any mention of which parameter supplies the URL leaves slight ambiguity.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as web-fetch, fetch-status, or domain-shape. The phrase 'public robots.txt' implies a use case, but no explicit conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are provided.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden for behavior. It adds the sole detail that the key is discarded, which is a useful privacy cue, but it does not disclose whether the check is local-only, whether it makes network calls, or what output format is produced. The behavioral picture is mostly empty.

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 terse sentences with no filler; the primary action is stated first and the discard behavior follows. It is concise without being verbose, though it sacrifices necessary 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?

Given a broad 9-parameter schema, no annotations, no output schema, and 27 sibling tools, this description is far too thin. It fails to tell the agent which argument contains the key, what shape means, what result to expect, or whether any side effects occur, leaving the agent unable to invoke it confidently.

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 individually documented and the baseline is set to 3. The description does not clarify that any of the nine generic parameters is the 'Jira issue key', leaving some mapping ambiguity, but the schema itself is self-documenting for each parameter's own role.

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 and resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape') and clearly differentiates from sibling shape-checking tools like github-repo-shape and figma-url-shape. It does not describe the accepted format or return value, so it is not fully self-contained, but the core purpose is clear.

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 related alternatives such as domain-shape, figma-url-shape, or normalize-url. There are no conditions, exclusions, or recommended triggers, so an agent has to infer usage solely from the tool's 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one key behavior: 'Body discarded,' indicating the response excludes content. However, it omits other relevant details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the exact status code range returned. The mismatch between the narrow description and the broad schema (9 unrelated params) also creates behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, front-loading the key action and scope. It is efficient with zero wasted words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification given the complexity of the tool.

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

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

This tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a minimal statement about HTTP status. It fails to explain the purpose of the other parameters, the expected output format, or how this tool relates to siblings. An agent would be underinformed about how to use it correctly, making this definition inadequate for its 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%, with each parameter having a descriptive comment. The tool description adds no extra meaning to these parameters; it only mentions the 'library docs URL' context, which doesn't clarify which parameter is relevant for the HTTP status check. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to bridge the gap between the stated purpose and the heterogeneous 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL.' This clearly identifies the tool's core action and distinguishes it from generic fetch tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch, which also deal with URL status/content, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this over them.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools. An agent would have no indication whether to use this or fetch-status for a generic URL check.

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 mentions 'Values discarded', which is a minor trait, but does not state what the tool returns, how it handles the various non-JSON parameters, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters and no output 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids verbosity, though the brevity contributes to the lack of context. It is not unnecessarily long, so the structure is acceptable.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too brief to be complete. It does not explain the purpose of most parameters, the expected return value, or the conditions under which each parameter is used. An agent would struggle to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds meaning only for the 'json' parameter by clarifying its purpose. It does not explain why other parameters like 'url' or 'city' are present, which is a gap beyond what the schema alone provides. 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 states a specific verb ('Count keys') and resource ('in a JSON object'), and notes that values are discarded. However, the tool accepts 9 parameters, most of which (e.g., 'url', 'city', 'feed') have nothing to do with JSON objects, making the stated purpose ambiguous and incomplete. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'validate-json' or 'search-query-len'.

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 relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it genuinely discloses a non-obvious behavior: query and fragment are dropped from the result. However, it omits other normalization traits an agent would want (case handling, trailing slashes, whether any network access occurs) and says nothing about the fate of the non-URL inputs, several of which the schema marks as '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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core contract — what it returns — is front-loaded ahead of the qualifier about what it drops. The definition earns its 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?

This tool has high complexity — nine unrelated parameters, no annotations, and no output schema — yet the description addresses only the url case. An agent cannot tell whether calling with just url is valid, what the result looks like beyond three named components, or why ref, city, feed, json, zone, and query parameters exist on this tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description and the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning to the url parameter by defining 'normalize' as returning origin/host/path, but it does not explain how the other eight parameters relate to the tool's 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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' — and adds scope by noting that query and fragment are dropped. It is clear about the core function, but it does not differentiate normalize-url from URL-adjacent siblings like browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, or domain-shape, and it ignores the other eight parameters in the schema.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or named sibling tools. Given siblings like web-fetch, fetch-status, browser-url-ok, and domain-shape, the agent is left to infer when normalization is preferred over fetching or validating.

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 discloses one behavior (no browser launched), but the schema reveals that many parameters are 'discarded after the check' and that the tool can handle weather hints, JSON validation, timezone names, and search queries—none of which are mentioned. It also does not disclose return format or side effects (e.g., no disk access for path). This is a significant gap for a tool with such broad capabilities.

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), which is structurally efficient. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness—it omits essential context about the tool's actual scope. It is not wordy, but it is under-specified, so it earns a middle score rather than a high one.

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 of the input schema (9 parameters, all optional, covering diverse domains) and the absence of an output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the tool's function, what the tool returns, or how to use it for anything beyond the narrow URL check it mentions. An agent would be lost trying to invoke this tool for any of the other apparent capabilities.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema and, worse, conflicts with it: the 'url' parameter is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than something to check for openability. The description's single purpose does not map to the parameter set, so an agent cannot infer how to use the parameters correctly. Baseline 3 is reduced due to the contradiction between description and 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 check ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and a distinguishing constraint ('No browser is launched'), but the input schema includes nine unrelated parameters (city, json, zone, query, etc.) with descriptions about normalizing, citing, validating, and discarding—none of which match the stated purpose. This mismatch makes the purpose misleading: an agent would expect a simple URL check but the tool appears to handle many other tasks.

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 alternatives. The phrase 'No browser is launched' implies a lighter operation than browser-url-ok, but it never explicitly says 'use this when you need a quick check without a browser' or directs to siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url. The agent is left to infer selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the query is discarded, which is useful, but it does not state that only the 'query' parameter is actually used while the other eight parameters are ignored. It also omits the return format (presumably an integer count) and any edge cases. The description is too terse to fully disclose 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 two short sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded and the discarded-query note is valuable. It is appropriately concise, though it could benefit from one more sentence clarifying 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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain that only the 'query' parameter is used and the rest are ignored, which could lead to misuse. It also does not specify the return value or any limits. Given the complexity of the parameter set, more context is needed.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it implies only 'query' is relevant, and other parameters are ignored, but this is not explicit. Since the baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not significantly augment the schema, a 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: count characters in a search query. It also adds a scoping note that the query is discarded. This is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like memory-key-count or hn-front-count, but those are clearly different resources. The purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or any context where another tool would be more appropriate. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is for counting query length, with no explicit routing information.

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 behavioral disclosure burden, but it only implies a read-only reference. It does not disclose output shape, side effects, why there are nine unrelated optional parameters, or whether any network/file/disk access occurs, so it is not transparent.

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 short sentence with no filler or wasted words, and it leads with the apparent resource type. It is strongly concise, although its extreme brevity is partly why other dimensions score low.

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, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description explains almost nothing about how to call it correctly, what inputs matter, or what kind of result is returned. It is not complete enough for an agent to know what to select and invoke.

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%, and each of the nine parameters has its own description in the schema, so the description does not need to re-explain each one. However, the tool description adds no guidance on how any of these parameters relate to the catalog, which is a notable gap, but the high schema coverage keeps this at baseline.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase, 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' that mostly restates the tool's name without stating the actual operation an agent should invoke. It does not say what the tool returns, how it is used, or how it differs from the many sibling tools, so it only vaguely communicates 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. The description provides no context, exclusions, or alternative routing, leaving the agent to guess when this catalog is relevant.

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 the prompt is discarded, which is a behavioral trait, but it omits details about return format, side effects, or any interaction with the environment. For a tool that returns a static template, this is minimal but not entirely absent.

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 brief (two sentences), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structure and fails to front-load essential information about the template's content or usage, making it ineffective despite its 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not describe what the template looks like, how parameters (if any) affect the output, or what the agent should expect as a response. The agent would have no basis for predicting the tool's behavior.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add per-parameter semantics; it only mentions that the prompt is discarded, which is ambiguous about whether parameters are ignored. The agent must rely solely on the schema for parameter meaning.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Return a three-step thinking template') and a clear resource, which is not a tautology. However, it does not explain what the template is for or how it differs from sibling tools, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only note, 'Prompt discarded,' suggests the input is ignored but does not help an agent decide when to invoke 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, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the timezone lookup, omitting what happens with the other 8 parameters, whether they are validated or ignored, the output format, or any side effects. The schema hints at 'discarded after the shape check' and 'no disk access', but the tool description itself adds nothing beyond the basic function.

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, which is efficient, but it omits essential context. For a tool with 9 parameters, brevity is not sufficient; the sentence lacks structure to guide 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 tool's complexity (9 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema), this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot infer correct usage, expected output, or even the purpose of most parameters. It needs substantially more detail to be usable.

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 all parameters are described, but the description does not explain how the extra parameters relate to the timezone function. It implies only the zone matters, leaving the purpose of the other parameters unclear and failing to help the agent decide which ones to 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?

States 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' which is specific, but the input schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, query) with no explanation of their role. This makes the tool's actual scope ambiguous; it appears to be a multi-purpose utility rather than a pure timezone lookup.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like utc-time, iana-zones, or tz-asia-nicosia. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or appropriate contexts, 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only notion of returning current local time, but it does not disclose how the optional parameters are handled or why fields like ref, url, and json appear in the schema for this fixed timezone 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for the core purpose, though it arguably sacrifices useful context and parameter clarification 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 description covers the essential subject matter but leaves an agent to guess how the output is formatted and how to treat the numerous optional fields. With no output schema and 9 optional parameters, more context about expected invocation would make the tool substantially easier to use correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is said to be 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and it does not indicate which of the nine optional parameters, if any, should be supplied when calling this timezone-specific tool.

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

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

The description clearly states the operation: it returns the current local time for Asia/Nicosia. It is specific about the resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as timezone, utc-time, or iana-zones, so it falls short of a 5.

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 intended use—obtaining the current time in Asia/Nicosia—but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the timezone-related siblings. It also does not clarify that the many optional schema parameters are mostly irrelevant to this particular 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'current', implying the value changes across calls, but does not disclose how the tool handles its 9 parameters (all silently discarded), what output format is returned, or whether any network/disk access occurs. This is insufficient 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?

The description is maximally concise – a single front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It earns its place, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with 9 parameters. A touch more detail would improve it without harmful verbosity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not state the return format or the fact that all parameters are ignored. Given the confusing set of 9 optional parameters, an agent needs clarity that these influence nothing — the description fails to provide that context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter carrying a 'discarded after...' note. The tool's own description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It neither clarifies nor obscures the relevance of the unrelated-looking 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 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the verb and resource (returns current UTC time). It is distinguishable from siblings like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones' by name, but the description does not explicitly differentiate or define 'timestamp' format (epoch vs ISO), so it misses the top score.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., timezone, iana-zones). The description is a one-phrase statement with no context on prerequisites, placement, or preferred scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the body is discarded, omitting important context such as no disk access for 'path' or no network for 'url', which are hinted in parameter descriptions but not in the tool description. No side effects, permissions, or safety profile are disclosed.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this is too terse and omits essential context, making it inefficient for an agent to parse useful intent.

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

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

The description is severely incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It does not explain what the tool actually validates, what inputs are expected, or what the result will be. An agent cannot determine when to call this tool or what it returns, making it nearly unusable.

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 provides full descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the tool description is not required to repeat them. However, it adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate to the validation or which are essential, leaving the agent to infer the tool's actual purpose from the parameter list alone.

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

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

The description says 'Check whether a body is valid JSON' but 'body' is undefined and the tool's actual scope (which of the 9 parameters are relevant) is unclear. It is essentially a restatement of the name 'validate-json' and does not distinguish the tool from sibling shape-checking tools like 'domain-shape' or 'file-path-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 only additional note, 'The body is discarded,' is a behavioral trait, not usage guidance. An agent gets no information about conditions, prerequisites, 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?

No annotations are available, so the description carries the entire burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Current temperature via Open-Meteo', implying a read-only query, but it does not state side effects, error behavior, data handling, or that all parameters except city are discarded. This leaves significant unknown behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo.' It packs the core action, subject, and source with no unnecessary words.

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

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

Given there are nine input parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return format, units, behavior for invalid city, or the purpose of the other eight schema fields. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool or interpret its results solely from 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% for all nine parameters, so the schema already explains each field. The description adds only that the city field is relevant, but it does not explain how the tool should treat the other eight parameters, nor does it add any semantic value beyond what is already in the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific action and resource: get current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. This clearly identifies the weather lookup purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like geo-hint or timezone, though it does not explicitly name any alternatives.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate invocation context without mention of criteria, prerequisites, or 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds two useful details: 'public URL' (scope constraint) and 'Body discarded' (side-effect note). However, it does not disclose error behavior, redirects, rate limits, or what happens for non-public URLs. Given no annotations, a 3 is appropriate – it provides some value but is not rich.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and result. Perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema. The description only addresses the URL behavior, ignoring all other parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query). It fails to explain the overall purpose of these parameters or how they are used, making the definition incomplete for an agent to call correctly. A description this sparse is inadequate for a multi-parameter tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself provides per-parameter explanations (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema – it does not explain how parameters relate to the main URL operation or how to prioritize them. Baseline 3 is correct.

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: 'HTTP status and content type for a public URL.' It clearly indicates what the tool does (fetches a URL and reports status/content type) and explicitly notes the body is discarded. However, it does not name alternatives or differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, so it loses one point.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it over siblings. This is a clear gap.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It merely mentions 'Title discarded after the call,' which is confusing given the lack of a title parameter, and says nothing about side effects, permissions, error behavior, or what the call actually does with the nine 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 short, but its brevity is not a virtue because it omits essential information and is misleading. It front-loads an irrelevant claim about discarding titles, wasting the only sentence on an unhelpful 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what input to provide, what the tool returns, or what side effects (if any) occur. The tool is effectively unusable from this description alone.

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

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

The schema descriptions are generic placeholders (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') and do not relate to the stated purpose of checking a Wikipedia title. The description adds no clarification or mapping between the parameters and the tool's function, so it provides zero value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific action 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists,' which is a clear verb+resource, but it is completely inconsistent with the input schema that has no title parameter and instead includes unrelated fields like ref, url, city, etc. This mismatch undermines clarity and makes the purpose ambiguous in practice.

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 any sibling. The description only gives a bare action with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent to guess whether this is the right tool for a given task.

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