Asia/Novosibirsk clock

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

The description explicitly discloses that task text is discarded and lists the returned artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, which provide no hints (all false). It also implies read-only 'find' semantics without stating them fully.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying necessary information: the core purpose, the return contents, and a key behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 that the schema covers parameter details and there is no output schema, the description adequately states what the tool does and returns. It also adds a caution that task text is ignored. It does not define the return format or mention prerequisites, but for a simple find-type tool this is largely complete.

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 already describes each of the six parameters with concrete semantics, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a global note that task text is discarded, but that does not map to any specific schema property. No additional parameter-level meaning is provided.

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 opens with a specific action and target: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid).' It clearly states a distinct resource and purpose, and the reference to 'remote MCP hops' distinguishes it from every sibling listed, none of which mention gateways or Monid.

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 intended use case is implied: an agent needing a pay-per-call tool gateway would call this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it, so guidance is only implicit.

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

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

The description explicitly discloses that no browser is launched, and parameter descriptions further state side effects such as 'discarded after the shape check' and 'no disk access', providing meaningful behavioral transparency despite no annotations.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler, each adding distinct information about the purpose and the no-browser caveat.

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

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

The description is too sparse for a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations; it fails to explain the multi-purpose parameters, expected return behavior, or how it differs from the many sibling validators.

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

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

Although every parameter has a type and description, the descriptions do not explain how values like ref, city, json, path, zone, and query relate to checking whether a URL can be opened; the high schema coverage does not resolve the semantic mismatch.

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

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

The description states a clear action (check whether a URL can be opened) and a key caveat (no browser launched), but the schema includes nine unrelated optional parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query), so the actual scope is 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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool instead of siblings like playwright-url-ok, fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch; the only hint is the negative statement that no browser is launched.

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 adds only the vague phrase 'Expression discarded', which suggests some non-persistence but fails to explain what the tool returns, whether it mutates anything, or how it behaves on invalid input. This is too little context for an invocation decision.

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 and the main verb is front-loaded, which is good for conciseness. However, the second sentence 'Expression discarded.' is structurally disconnected and ambiguous; it does not clearly earn its place and leaves the reader with more confusion than clarity.

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 seven input parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description does not explain which parameter holds the expression, what the return value is, or what 'discarded' means operationally. An agent has essentially no reliable way 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?

The schema gives each of the seven parameters a description, so schema coverage is nominally high, but every parameter relates to refs, URLs, cities, feeds, hosts, JSON, or paths. The tool description promises arithmetic evaluation yet maps none of these parameters to an expression, so an agent cannot determine which argument to provide or whether the tool is usable at all. The description adds no parameter-level clarification and the schema does not compensate because it is mismatched.

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 does name a specific operation: 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic', which gives a surface-level purpose and distinguishes it from the shape-checking siblings. However, the clause 'Expression discarded' is ambiguous about whether results are returned, and none of the seven input-schema properties can plausibly carry an arithmetic expression, making the stated purpose hard to act on.

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 calc-eval instead of sibling tools, nor any mention of preconditions, alternatives, or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does in the abstract, leaving the agent to guess whether this is the right tool for a task.

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 supplied, so the description is the sole source. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait (page content is not stored) and implies a read-only URL inspection. But it leaves out network fetch side effects, required inputs, and how unrelated parameters are handled; the schema covers some, but the description does not.

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 no filler. The core function is front-loaded and the storage caveat earns its second sentence.

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 seven parameters and no output schema, and the description only covers URL behavior. The schema descriptions carry most of the invocation detail; an agent still gets no guidance on which parameters are required or how to handle the non-URL parameters, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 provides its own descriptions for all seven properties, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the URL-to-output association but doesn't explain the role or irrelevance of ref, city, feed, json, host, or path; the schema's discard notes partially compensate.

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

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

States a concrete operation: Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, so an agent understands the tool's primary output. It doesn't explicitly disambiguate against fetch-status/normalize-url siblings, so it stops 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?

No text explains when to choose citation over adjacent tools such as fetch-status or normalize-url, nor when not to use it. The only context is 'for a URL,' which is an implied scenario, not explicit guidance.

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 transparency burden; it does add a useful behavioral trait ('No identifiers are retained') that reinforces the per-parameter 'discarded' notes. However, it does not disclose the output shape, whether any external lookup occurs, or any side effects, leaving the behavior only partially 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?

Two short sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and a genuinely useful privacy guarantee in the second. There is no fluff, redundant schema repetition, or wasted 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?

Without an output schema or annotations, an agent cannot reliably predict what the classification result looks like or which input makes the tool applicable. Given seven heterogeneous optional parameters and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse to support correct invocation.

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

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

The input schema describes every parameter in concrete terms, so schema description coverage is already high and the baseline applies. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the generic idea that the request is being classified.

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

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

The description uses a clear verb ('Show') and resource ('this request'), and the tool name hints at classification, but 'classified' is unspecified – no categories, output format, or relation to 'compatibility' is stated. It does not meaningfully distinguish this from sibling shape-check tools such as domain-shape or github-repo-shape.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to choose compatibility over the many sibling tools, nor which of the seven optional parameters to supply. The privacy note suggests a use case around not retaining identifiers, but it does not state a selection rule or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that no WHOIS/ownership enrichment happens and that the operation is a lexical split, which is useful. However, it does not describe return shape, error behavior, or whether the hostname is validated before splitting.

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

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

One fragment, no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It says exactly enough to convey scope without redundency.

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 core action is clear and the schema covers the parameter names, but the definition is coupled with a seven-field schema and no output schema. An agent would benefit from explicit guidance that 'host' is the input and the other fields are irrelevant, so completeness is only minimally adequate.

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

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

All seven schema properties have descriptions, so the baseline applies. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and never explicitly singles out the 'host' parameter as the required input, although the schema already describes it as 'Public hostname'.

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 concrete action ('Split'), a clear target ('a hostname'), and an explicit scope exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). This distinguishes it from ownership/network-lookup style tools and makes the tool's purpose 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 implies the obvious use case — splitting hostnames into labels — but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it. The 'without WHOIS/ownership' clause provides a partial boundary, but no alternatives are named.

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

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

The description discloses that the operation is a HEAD request and that only the status is returned, which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, it leaves out redirect handling, error behavior, public-access requirements, and whether the non-URL parameters are actually used or ignored.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, but its brevity is slightly mismatched with the breadth of the schema, preventing a perfect score.

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

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and seven unrelated-looking parameters, the description should explain which parameter is required, what the returned status looks like, and how the other inputs are handled. It only covers a simple URL case, leaving substantial ambiguity for an agent.

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 already documents all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning and does not clarify how ref, city, feed, json, or path relate to the HEAD operation, leaving the multi-parameter schema unexplained.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb (HEAD), identifies the resource (public URL), and constrains the result (status only). It clearly describes the core action, but the input schema exposes many other parameters (ref, city, json, path) that the description does not reconcile, so it stops short of a perfect 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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned. An agent scanning siblings like web-fetch, browser-url-ok, or status-catalog gets no explicit reason to pick fetch-status; the only clue is the implied status-only intent.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one behavioral quirk ('Path discarded'), but it fails to mention whether the tool validates, extracts data, errors on non-Figma URLs, or has side effects. For a parsing tool this is minimal and insufficient.

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

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

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' The second sentence adds a relevant behavioral detail about discarding the path. There is no waste, though the terseness leaves room for more useful guidance.

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 9-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It doesn't identify the key input field, define the output shape, clarify 'discarded' semantics, or explain how this differs from other URL-related siblings. The description is not enough for an agent to invoke the 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%, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter info in the tool description. The description doesn't add meaning to the parameters, and the mismatch between the generic 'url' parameter description and the Figma-specific purpose weakens clarity, but the schema itself is present and documented.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('Parse a Figma file URL') and a specific resource type (Figma file URLs), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. However, it doesn't specify which input parameter carries the URL or what 'parse' produces, so there is some ambiguity in how to invoke it.

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 choose this tool over alternatives like browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or normalize-url. The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer suitability solely from the 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?

There are no annotations, so the description bears the burden of explaining side effects, return values, and error behavior. It only discloses 'No disk access' and never states what the tool returns, whether it is pure, or how it handles invalid or empty input.

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

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

The description is brief and front-loaded with the main verb and object. Both sentences provide relevant information with no obvious fluff.

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

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

With nine optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what output to expect, what 'safe' means, which parameter is central, or how to handle cases where multiple parameters are supplied.

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

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

Although every schema parameter has a description, most of those descriptions are unrelated to the stated purpose of checking a file path (e.g., 'IANA timezone name', 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'). The parameter schema appears copied from other tools, and the top-level description does not clarify which parameter should actually be passed.

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

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

The phrase 'Check whether a path looks safe' identifies the general resource and action, and 'No disk access' clarifies it is a syntactic/shape check rather than a filesystem stat. However, 'looks safe' is vague and the schema includes many unrelated parameters (url, city, zone, etc.), which muddies the intended scope.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling validators like browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or github-repo-shape. It also does not mention whether it should be used to validate local paths, reject traversal patterns, or something else.

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 full behavioral burden. It only discloses the external dependency on Open-Meteo, but says nothing about side effects, discarded inputs, authentication, rate limits, or what happens when the place cannot be resolved.

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 sentence is brief and free of fluff, but it is under-specified: it reads more like a fragment than a complete tool definition and omits enough context to be properly useful.

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 a seven-parameter schema containing several seemingly unrelated fields (ref, url, feed, host, json, path), no output schema, and no annotations, a single phrase about latitude and longitude is far from enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

The input schema already describes all seven parameters, giving high schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not say that `city` is the relevant input for the latitude/longitude result, so it provides little 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 the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, so the core purpose is recognizable. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action, does not specify how a 'place' is supplied (e.g., city), and does not distinguish it from nearby sibling tools like weather-hint.

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

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

No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to choose geo-hint over weather-hint or other location-related siblings, and no exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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 explaining behavior. It only says 'parse' and does not describe error handling, edge cases, return format, or whether any external network request is made.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It loses some points because it omits important operational details, but it is appropriately short given the simple stated action.

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

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

There is no output schema and no statement about what the returned owner/repo structure looks like. The tool also has nine parameters, many of which appear irrelevant, and the description does not resolve this ambiguity or provide error/edge-case context.

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

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

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions are generic and largely unrelated to parsing GitHub owner/repo. For example, 'url' is described only as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', and the other eight parameters seem irrelevant to the stated purpose. The description does not explain which parameters are actually used.

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 (parse), a specific resource (GitHub URL), and the intended output (owner and repo). It is mostly clear, though the presence of many unrelated parameters in the schema slightly muddies the focus.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, domain-shape, or figma-url-shape. The description does not mention GitHub-only URLs, invalid URLs, or what distinguishes this from sibling URL-shape tools.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions that titles are discarded and implies a read-only count, but it does not state side effects, network behavior, or whether extra parameters are ignored.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences and no redundant filler or unnecessary structure.

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

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

No output schema or return format is described, leaving unclear whether the result is a plain number, JSON object, or includes metadata. There is also no guidance on parameter usage despite the large optional schema.

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

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

The nine optional parameters have individual descriptions, but most are unrelated to counting Hacker News stories (e.g., ref, city, zone, json, path). The tool description does not clarify how, if at all, these parameters affect the count.

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 exact resource (Hacker News front page) and action (count current stories), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 choose this tool over alternatives like web-fetch or fetch-status, nor are conditions or exclusions 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that common timezone names exist; it does not say whether the tool returns a list, validates input, has side effects, or how it handles the diverse parameters. The 'discarded' behaviors appear only in the input schema, not in the description.

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

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

The description is one short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits the operational verb and leaves critical invocation details to the schema, so the brevity sacrifices clarity.

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 seven heterogeneous parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single noun phrase is far from complete. The description does not explain the relationship between the inputs and timezone names, whether any parameters are required, or what shape the result takes, making it inadequate for safe invocation.

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

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

The input schema already documents each parameter individually, including discard behavior, so the description need not repeat that. However, the description adds nothing about why ref, url, json, path, and the others are relevant to IANA timezone names, and it does not compensate for the conceptual mismatch between the parameters and the stated domain.

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

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

The description identifies a specific resource—common IANA timezone names—and suggests a use case for clock calls. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'validate,' and the seven input parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) do not obviously connect to timezone names, which blurs the tool's actual purpose.

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

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

The phrase 'for clock calls' gives an implied usage context, but the description does not say when to prefer this over sibling tools such as timezone or utc-time. There are no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose read-only intake ('public') and the reduced output ('group counts only'), but it says nothing about ignored/discarded parameters, failure modes, or whether the call has 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause contributes the resource, action, or output constraint.

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

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

Despite a seven-parameter schema and no output schema, the description explains neither which parameter provides the robots.txt URL nor what 'group counts' look like. It names the output shape but not the input path, leaving a critical calling problem unresolved.

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

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

All seven input parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The schema descriptions themselves are not fully aligned with robots.txt (e.g., 'normalize or cite', 'weather hint'), but the description doesn't create further ambiguity.

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 resource ('public robots.txt'), a specific verb ('Fetch'), and constrains the result ('group counts only'), so an agent can tell its core function apart from generic web fetch tools. It doesn't name a sibling or explicitly contrast with web-fetch/fetch-status, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The 'only' phrasing hints at scope but doesn't say when an agent should pick inspect-robots over web-fetch or fetch-status.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. The phrase 'Key discarded' adds a useful data-retention note, but it does not state side effects, return behavior, or validation characteristics. For a no-annotation tool this is too thin.

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, and the purpose is front-loaded. Each sentence serves a function—purpose and a data-retention note—even though the extreme brevity edges toward under-specification.

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

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

With seven heterogenus parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too short to orient an agent. It fails to say which parameter holds the key, what the check result looks like, or what 'discarded' means operationally; the schema field descriptions do not integrate with the tool's purpose.

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

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

All seven parameters have individual schema descriptions, so schema description coverage is 100%, and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no mapping of the Jira key to any field and does not clarify which parameters are actually shape-checked, so its value beyond the schema is minimal.

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 verb 'Check' and resource 'Jira issue key shape' clearly state the tool's validation purpose and distinguish it from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, no parameter is named 'key', so an agent cannot tell from the description which input holds the key.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives; there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as 'use before calling a Jira API'. The only implied context is the tool name, which is insufficient for an agent deciding among shape-checking siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds the concrete useful fact that the response body is discarded, so agents should not expect content. 'Public' also hints at no auth, though this is not explicit.

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

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

Two short sentences with no filler; the core purpose and the body-discard behavior are both front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for what it covers.

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 seven heterogeneous parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not identify which parameter carries the URL, what HTTP status values to expect, or how errors are surfaced. The annotations cover safety but not invocation guidance.

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

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

The description does not map 'public library docs URL' to any of the seven schema properties, and the schema's property descriptions are mismatched to the tool's purpose (Git refs, city weather, RSS feeds, JSON validation, file paths). High schema coverage is undermined by this incoherence, and the description adds no clarifying 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 the operation as returning the HTTP status for a public library docs URL, and 'Body discarded' makes clear this is a status-only probe. It is differentiated from content-fetching siblings like web-fetch, though less clearly from a generic status checker like fetch-status.

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 'Body discarded' implicitly tells an agent to use this tool when only the HTTP status is needed, not the page content. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving usage context mostly implied.

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, and it only discloses that 'values are discarded.' It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether calling it mutates the memory implied by the tool name, what the return value is, or what happens for an empty object. For a tool whose name suggests internal state, the side-effect profile is a significant undisclosed gap.

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

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

Two terse sentences with zero fluff: purpose first, behavioral note second. Every word earns its place. It scores below 5 only because the extreme brevity leaves the tool under-specified, though that deficiency is penalized in other dimensions.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, none required, no annotations, and no output schema, an 8-word description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, why the schema contains nine unrelated optional parameters, whether any parameter is actually required for the operation, or how this relates to similar siblings. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided definition.

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%, which normally earns a baseline of 3, but the description actively misleads parameter understanding: it refers to a single JSON object, yet 8 of the 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, path, zone, query) are unrelated strings whose schema descriptions reference other tools. The description does not clarify that the JSON object is likely internal memory rather than the `json` parameter, creating genuine ambiguity about what the agent should pass.

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

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

The description 'Count keys in a JSON object' largely restates the tool name (key-count) and adds only the vague qualifier 'in a JSON object' without specifying which object — the `json` parameter, or internal memory suggested by the tool name. It also fails to distinguish from siblings like validate-json or hn-front-count, leaving the agent unable to tell what this tool is actually for.

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 sibling is named, no condition is stated, and no exclusion is given, so an agent has zero basis for choosing this over validate-json or any other shape-check sibling.

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 carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait—dropping query and fragment—which adds real value. However, it remains silent on error handling, output format, and the odd fact that most schema parameters are accepted and then discarded; those details live only in the schema, not in the behavioral 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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The main output contract is front-loaded and the key omission behavior is stated in a single clause, making it easy to parse.

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 core extraction behavior is clear, but the description leaves the return format unspecified, says nothing about failure cases, and does not reconcile the presence of many unrelated discard-only parameters. Without annotations or an output schema, these gaps make the description adequate but incomplete for confident invocation.

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

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

Schema descriptions already cover all eight parameters in detail, including discard semantics for seven of them, so schema coverage is high. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it doesn't even point to the 'url' parameter as the primary input. With schema carrying the weight, a 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 'Return' with a clear resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL') and explicitly names what is omitted ('Query and fragment are dropped'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that validate or fetch URLs rather than parse 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like fetch-status, playwright-url-ok, or domain-shape. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the stated purpose.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one important behavior—no browser is launched—but it does not disclose whether network access occurs, what the check actually verifies, what side effects or errors may result, or how the result is returned.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and the second adds an important constraint. Both sentences earn their place, though the description is arguably too terse for the complexity of the tool and its parameter surface.

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 is a complex tool with nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only covers a URL check. It does not explain how the other parameters fit, what 'ok' means, what the return value looks like, or how to choose among the many sibling tools, so the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'a URL,' and it actually obscures the fact that the tool accepts many non-URL parameters. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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

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

The description states a clear action and target: 'Check whether a URL can be opened,' and it adds a useful constraint with 'No browser is launched,' which distinguishes it somewhat from browser-url-ok. However, it does not differentiate from other URL-related siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, and the URL-only framing is narrower than the nine unrelated 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is 'No browser is launched,' which weakly implies browser-url-ok might be the browser-based alternative, but the description never names alternatives or states conditions for choosing 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 carries the full burden. It does disclose that the query is discarded, which is useful, but it does not describe the return format, how characters are counted, error behavior, or why the schema lists seven unrelated inputs. This is insufficient behavioral coverage 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 definition is two short sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded and the side-effect note is compact. It is appropriately concise, though the extreme brev unavoidably leaves out information needed for correct invocation.

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 seven-property input schema and no output schema or annotations, the description is materially incomplete. It does not say which parameter to use, what the return value represents, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly from this definition alone.

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

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

Although the schema itself documents each property, the descriptions expose no 'query' parameter, and the tool description never maps 'search query' to any schema field. The high schema coverage is therefore irrelevant because it covers the wrong set of parameters from this tool's perspective. The description adds no usable meaning 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 clear action: 'Count characters in a search query. Query discarded.' This is specific and differentiates the tool from siblings such as memory-key-count. However, the input schema exposes no 'query' parameter—only ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path—so the agent cannot map the described purpose to an actual input. The core resource is therefore undefined.

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 excluded cases, and no named sibling. The only implicit hint is that the query is discarded, which suggests a non-persistent/c检查 operation, but that is far too thin to route an agent confidently.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing, but it does not state whether the tool has side effects, what it returns, or why several parameters are marked as 'discarded after' checks, leaving important 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, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It conveys only a noun phrase and provides no actionable guidance, so it does not 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?

With seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot know what input to provide, whether any parameters are required, or what response to expect.

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

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

The input schema provides descriptions for all seven parameters, so the schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no information about which parameters are relevant to the catalog or how they affect the result.

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 the resource (common HTTP status codes) and identifies the tool as a short catalog, so the general domain is clear. However, it lacks a verb or any statement of what the tool does with inputs; it reads more like a restatement of the tool name than a functional 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 usage guidance at all. The description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, and the seven parameters in the schema are left unexplained, so an agent cannot determine when to choose status-catalog over sibling tools like fetch-status.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one trait: 'Prompt discarded,' which tells the agent that arbitrary prompts are ignored. But it does not reveal whether the tool has side effects, what happens to the schema's many parameters, or whether the template is static or input-dependent.

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 text is extremely concise and front-loaded: the core deliverable is stated first, and 'Prompt discarded' is the second sentence. There is no filler. The terseness is arguably excessive given the tool's complexity, but as a concise structure it succeeds.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits the template structure, the role of each parameter, and what 'Prompt discarded' means operationally. An agent selecting or invoking this tool would still have to guess how inputs map to the returned template.

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 provides descriptions for each property, including notes like 'discarded after the shape check,' so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics and, notably, does not explain why seven unrelated parameters exist for a tool that returns a template.

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: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' That is a clear verb+resource, and no sibling tool appears to offer this same output. However, it does not explain what the template contains or how the many input parameters relate to it, preventing a perfect clarity 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes shape-checkers and validators, but the description never mentions them or provides a selection criterion. The only implied use case is 'when you need a thinking template,' which is not actionable.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only implies read-only behavior via 'Current time' and says nothing about the response format, invalid-zone handling, side effects, or the fact that the schema parameters appear to be discarded shape checks. An agent has almost no behavioral model to predict the call result.

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 or repetition. It is appropriately concise by itself, though the conciseness cannot compensate for the missing schema alignment.

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

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

With no annotations, no output schema, seven unrelated parameters, and no explanation of how to supply the timezone, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot correctly call the tool as described, and the schema mismatch is not reconciled.

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 fields have descriptions, but none of them accepts a named IANA timezone. Fields like city, url, json, ref, and path describe unrelated or discarded inputs, so the description does not help an agent map the intended timezone argument to any parameter. This is a fundamental invocation blocker.

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

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

The description states a specific resource ('current time in a named IANA timezone') and contrasts naturally with siblings like utc-time or iaNA-zones. However, the input schema contains no field for an IANA timezone, so the stated purpose is not actionable and is operationally 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 wording implies the tool is meant for non-UTC IANA timezone lookups, unlike utc-time or iana-zones, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The usage context is only implicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the output and says nothing about whether parameters are ignored, what value format is returned, or whether the tool has any side effects. The schema hints that most parameters are discarded, but the description itself does not communicate this.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, which is concise. However, for a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, this brevity becomes under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is appropriately small but not sufficiently informative.

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

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

The tool is simple in concept but has a surprising number of optional parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain the return format, the role of parameters, or how this tool relates to timezone-related siblings. An agent would need additional inference to call it correctly in a nontrivial context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, but the structured schema already documents each parameter and its discarding behavior. Giving a 3 is appropriate because the description neither helps nor harms parameter understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states what the tool returns: a current UTC timestamp. It is not a tautology because it specifies the value as UTC and as a timestamp rather than simply echoing the tool name. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone or iana-zones.

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 timezone or iana-zones. It also does not mention that all parameters appear optional and are mostly discarded, so an agent has no direction on what arguments to pass or when this tool is the right choice.

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 behavioral disclosure. 'The body is discarded' usefully communicates a stateless, non-retaining behavior. But it does not clarify whether validation is purely syntactic, whether any side effects occur, or what the caller receives in response.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and adds a useful behavioral note about discarding the input. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what result the agent can expect, but it does not. With nine optional parameters and no required ones, the tool also does not say which parameter an agent should populate to validate JSON. The odd extra parameters deepen the ambiguity, making this insufficient for reliable invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the nine parameters is individually documented, making the baseline 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level guidance and even creates ambiguity by referring to a 'body' when no `body` parameter exists, while the `json` parameter is the one explicitly described as JSON text to validate.

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 concrete action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') that matches the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling format/shape checkers. However, it leaves 'body' undefined, and only the `json` parameter in the schema clarifies what input is actually being validated.

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, what kind of 'body' it expects, or any prerequisites. The purpose statement implies a use case at best, but does not explain how to choose it among the many sibling validation/shape-checking tools.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only weather lookup via Open-Meteo, which suggests no mutations or side effects, but it does not disclose response format, units, network dependencies, or error behavior. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple weather hint.

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, succinct sentence that communicates the core purpose and the data source with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple hint 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?

The description is sufficient for understanding the basic purpose, but it does not specify which parameter is required, the return format, or temperature units. The schema partially compensates by describing the 'city' parameter, but without an output schema or explicit invocation guidance, an agent must infer some details.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, including clarifications that many are discarded after shape checks. The tool description adds little beyond naming the city as the relevant input. With high schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool provides the current temperature for a city using Open-Meteo, which identifies both the resource and the subject matter. It does not use a explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', but the intent is unambiguous and it is easily distinguishable from sibling hint tools such as geo-hint or lib-docs-hint.

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 use when an agent needs current temperature for a city, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It also does not mention any sibling tool names, so routing decisions rely on inference from the tool name and description.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden and does a decent job: it discloses that only public URLs are relevant, that the body is discarded, and that the result is limited to status and content type. It does not mention edge behaviors like redirects or timeouts, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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 no filler: the first states the core function and scope, the second the key behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place.

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

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

The tool has a surprisingly broad optional schema with eight fields, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only covers the simple URL-fetching interpretation and gives the agent no guidance on how to handle the other parameters, making the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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

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

The input schema describes all eight parameters, so baseline coverage is high. The description adds little about parameter usage beyond implying the url field is the main input. It does not clarify why the other optional parameters exist or whether they are alternatives, which leaves some ambiguity.

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 what the tool does: it returns HTTP status and content type for a public URL, and explicitly notes that the body is discarded. This is a specific verb-resource pairing, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

The usage context is implied: use this when you only need HTTP status and content type, not the response body. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the title is 'discarded after the call', a useful privacy trait. However, it does not reveal whether the tool performs a network request, what it returns, or how missing titles are handled, leaving significant behavioral unknowns.

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 and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a meaningful behavioral note without unnecessary detail. It is appropriately concise, though the schema mismatch makes the overall definition confusing.

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

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

The tool description cannot be used to make a valid call: it mentions a title input that is absent from the schema, provides no output schema or return type, and offers no explanation of how the parameters relate to the operation. The only contextual snippet is the discarding statement, which is insufficient. An agent would have no idea how to invoke this tool.

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

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

The schema lists seven parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path), none of which is 'title' or even plausibly maps to a Wikipedia title. The description introduces 'title' without connecting it to any schema parameter. Schema descriptions like 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' are completely unrelated to checking Wikipedia titles, so the agent cannot determine what 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?

The description is specific: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' This clearly identifies the verb (check), the resource (Wikipedia title), and the intended operation (existence verification). It also differentiates the tool from siblings like 'validate-json' or 'normalize-url', which address other domains.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to sibling tools. The only implied guidance is that the tool is for Wikipedia title existence checks, but the agent receives no direction about when to choose this over a search or citation tool.

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