Asia/Phnom_Penh clock

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that task text is discarded and enumerates the return payload, which is useful. However, it does not explain that the schema parameters themselves are mostly ignored or validated only for shape, which is a significant behavioral gap given how many parameters exist.

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 that front-load the core purpose, then the outputs, then the critical discard behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no wasted text.

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

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

There is no output schema and the description's return list is terse. More importantly, with seven loosely-related input parameters and no explanation of what actually drives the 'find' operation, an agent cannot confidently know what to pass. The description is insufficient for a tool with this many inputs and no output schema.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% since every parameter has its own description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it also does not need to given the thorough schema descriptions.

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

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

The description states a specific verb (Find), a specific resource (a public pay-per-call tool gateway named Monid), and enumerates the returned artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This substantially clarifies the otherwise opaque tool name. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, leaving the agent to infer that Monid is not covered by the other utility 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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this tool when it needs Monid's CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, or remote MCP hops. The description gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so the agent must rely on sibling names and context to rule out other 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one meaningful trait: the tool does not launch a browser, which prevents a likely misinterpretation of 'browser-url-ok.' Still, it says nothing about whether a network request is made, whether the operation is read-only, what the return value looks like, or how the non-URL parameters are handled.

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 states the core action first and then immediately adds the most important caveat. 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?

Given seven heterogeneous parameters and no output schema, the description is far too thin for an agent to invoke the tool reliably. It does not explain what 'ok' means as a result, which parameters are required or mutually exclusive, whether the extra parameters are discarded or meaningful, or how this tool relates to the many sibling tools with similar names. The agent is left with too much ambiguity.

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?

Each parameter has a schema description, so the baseline for parameter coverage is moderate. However, the main description only discusses URLs, while the schema includes ref, city, feed, json, and path, and even the url parameter is described as 'normalize or cite' rather than 'open.' The description adds no useful parameter-level meaning and actually creates confusion about why those other fields exist.

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

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

The description names a concrete verb and resource: 'check whether a URL can be opened' and adds a useful exclusion with 'No browser is launched.' This helps differentiate it from a browser-launching sibling tool. However, 'can be opened' is left undefined, and the schema contains multiple unrelated parameters that make the tool's true scope less clear than the description implies.

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 browser is launched' implies this is a non-browser validation check, which gives the agent some usage context. But the description never names alternatives like playwright-url-ok, web-fetch, or fetch-status, nor does it explain when to choose this tool over them. The guidance is implied rather than 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?

'Expression discarded' does disclose a non-persistence behavior, but it conflicts with the schema's actual parameters and there is no mention of what the tool returns, side effects, or failure modes. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and falls well short.

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 in word count but that brevity is not earned—one fragment and one vague sentence that together misrepresent the tool. It is under-specified rather than concisely structured, and both sentences fail to align with 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?

With seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-clause description that ignores all parameters and specifies no return value is almost entirely inadequate. An agent cannot infer how to construct a valid call, what the result looks like, or when this tool applies.

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 never refers to the seven schema parameters, and the phrase 'a+b style arithmetic' implies an input (an expression) that does not exist in the schema. This actively misleads an agent about the required inputs, making the description worse than simply providing no parameter information.

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 operation, 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic', which sounds like a calculator, but the input schema contains no arithmetic expression parameter—only ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path. The stated purpose cannot be acted on with the provided schema, and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like validate-json or domain-shape.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusion conditions, and no context about the intended workflow. The sentence provides only a vague operation and a note that an expression is discarded, which offers no decision support.

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 does disclose a meaningful trait ('Page content is not stored'), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not address network behavior, errors, redirects, or what happens with invalid URLs.

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 wasted words. The main function is front-loaded and the non-storage guarantee is a separate, valuable behavioral note.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, a seven-property input schema needs more contextual support in the description. The description only explains the URL behavior and leaves ref, city, feed, host, json, and path unexplained, making it unclear whether these are alternate modes or incidental parameters.

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 descriptions in the input schema, so the 100% coverage baseline applies. The description does not add per-property detail, but it does tie the URL parameter to the expected outputs (host, scheme, HTTP status), which is modest additional 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('URL') plus the exact outputs (host, scheme, HTTP status). It is clearly not a generic statement, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch.

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 such as normalize-url, fetch-status, or web-fetch. The phrase 'Page content is not stored' provides an implicit privacy context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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. The only behavioral hint is 'No identifiers are retained,' which addresses data retention but not side effects, errors, or potential state changes. The tool's actual behavior (e.g., whether it performs network calls, reads files, or returns a classification based on heuristics) is not 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 extremely short, but brevity is not a virtue here because it omits essential information. It is not front-loaded with the key insight an agent needs, and every word is wasted on a vague overview rather than concrete details.

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

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

With 9 heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of the classification logic, the description lacks critical context. An agent would have no way to predict the tool's response or decide whether this tool is appropriate for a given task. The description is grossly insufficient for the tool's apparent complexity.

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

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

While the input schema covers all 9 parameters individually, the descriptions are generic and do not explain how each parameter contributes to the classification. Phrases like 'discarded after the shape check' hint at validation but leave the relationship between parameters and the output completely unclear. The description adds negligible 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 verb 'Show' is weak and ambiguous. It does not state what classification means, what categories exist, or how the output is structured. With 9 disparate parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) and a generic description, an agent cannot infer the tool's specific purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its 25 siblings. The description does not mention distinguishing scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would suggest calling this tool instead of a more specific one like validate-json, timezone, or weather-hint.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation does not include WHOIS or ownership data, and the verb 'Split' implies a pure parsing operation. However, it does not describe behavior for malformed hostnames, ports/paths, case normalization, trailing dots, or the exact return representation.

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 dense sentence with no filler. The core operation and the key exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data') are both front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 appears simple, but there are seven input parameters and no annotations or output schema. The description plus property descriptions are likely sufficient to call it with `host`, yet the abundance of seemingly unrelated fields and the lack of return-format details leave an agent with some ambiguity about what is actually relevant.

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 already describes every parameter, including 'host' as 'Public hostname', so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning; it does not, for example, explain that the `host` field is the only relevant input or how the other discarded fields relate.

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 ('Split'), a specific object ('a hostname'), and an explicit output ('labels'), and it clarifies a meaningful boundary ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). It is not tautological and reads clearly, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling shape/URL tools, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, web-fetch, or other 'shape' tools. The only implicit hint is that this is for hostname label-splitting and not WHOIS/ownership lookup, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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

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

The description does convey meaningful behavior: it performs a HEAD request, targets public URLs, and is limited to returning a status. With no annotations present, this partially carries the transparency burden, but it says nothing about redirects, timeouts, error behavior, or how the many non-URL parameters are handled.

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 single sentence is economical and front-loads the key idea. It does not waste words, though it is so brief that it sacrifices the contextual guidance other dimensions need.

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 heterogenous input parameters and no output schema or annotations, a one-sentence description of only the URL case is incomplete. An agent cannot correctly infer the purpose or invocation for most parameters in the schema.

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

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

The schema provides descriptions for every parameter, so baseline coverage is high, but the description adds little beyond labeling the URL as public and the result as status-only. It also fails to explain how ref, city, feed, json, or path relate to the tool, leaving their semantics unclear even though they are 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 names a specific verb and resource ('HEAD a public URL') and the intended output ('status only'), which is clear. However, the input schema declares seven unrelated parameter kinds (ref, city, feed, json, path, host) that the description does not acknowledge, so the stated purpose is misleadingly narrow.

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 prefer this tool over siblings like web-fetch, browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or status-catalog. 'Return status only' weakly implies a lightweight check, but it never says when-not to use it or names alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the path is discarded, but remains silent about whether the URL is fetched, what constitutes a valid Figma URL, or what the return value is. Those are material gaps for a 9-parameter 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?

Extremely short and front-loaded. The main action is in the first sentence, and the behavioral scoping detail follows immediately. No redundant 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?

A 9-parameter tool with no required params, no annotations, and no output schema needs more context than this. The description does not identify which parameter is the Figma URL, how invalid URLs behave, or what an agent should expect back, leaving crucial ambiguity.

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 parameters themselves are documented. The description adds almost nothing beyond the schema; it only implies the url parameter is relevant and that path is ignored. Baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description names a specific verb (Parse) and resource (Figma file URL), which is enough to distinguish it from generic URL tools at a glance. 'Path discarded.' adds a scoping detail, though it does not explain what parsing or shape validation actually produces.

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 instead of normalize-url, browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or other siblings. No exclusions, alternatives, or conditions are stated.

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 disclosing behavior. It explicitly says 'No disk access,' which is a critical safety trait: the tool performs no filesystem reads or writes. It stops short of stating the return format or what 'safe' means, but the most important behavioral constraint is clearly 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 only two sentences and the main action is front-loaded: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' The second sentence, 'No disk access,' is efficient and adds essential context without fluff. 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?

For a simple path-shape checker, the description covers the core safety concern. However, it never defines what 'safe' means, doesn't describe the return value despite no output schema, and the input schema includes many seemingly unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json) that the description doesn't explain or acknowledge, leaving some 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 provides descriptions for every parameter, including 'File path to check' for the path field. The tool description adds no meaning beyond indicating that 'path' is the subject, which the schema already states. Therefore the schema does the heavy lifting and the description contributes no extra parameter-level insight.

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 and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' The added 'No disk access' helps distinguish it from tools that actually fetch or validate resources, and the word 'path' separates it from URL-oriented siblings. It is clear, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling it is not.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternative tool names, and no exclusion conditions. 'No disk access' is a behavioral trait rather than usage guidance, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate instead of being told.

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 only discloses the external service and nominal output; it does not state what the response looks like, whether a city name is required, how failures are handled, or that this is a geocoding lookup.

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, which is appropriately concise for a one-line purpose. It sacrifices a clause that could clarify the city input, but on pure conciseness it is strong.

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 annotations, and the schema contains many unrelated parameters. The one-sentence description does not connect the 'place' to the 'city' property, does not describe the return value, and does not clarify how the Open-Meteo call is used, leaving an agent with only a guess at how to invoke it.

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

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

Schema descriptions cover all properties, but the description adds no connection between 'a place' and the city parameter. The schema's city description says 'City name for a public weather hint', which seems copied from weather-hint and makes it ambiguous which parameter an agent should pass for geo-hint.

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 (latitude and longitude), the target (a place), and the service (Open-Meteo), so an agent can tell it apart from weather-hint or timezone. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action like 'Get coordinates', and it does not indicate how the place is supplied.

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 this when you need coordinates for a place', but it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance and names no alternatives. With several place-related siblings in the toolset, an agent gets little help deciding between geo-hint, weather-hint, timezone, and similar 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, and the description only mentions parsing without disclosing side effects, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. The schema contains many unrelated fields (city, feed, zone) that contradict the stated purpose, further muddying behavioral expectations.

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 directly conveys the core function without unnecessary verbiage. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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

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

The description lacks essential context such as input format expectations, return value structure, error handling, or any example usage. With no output schema and a confusing parameter set, an agent cannot reliably know how to invoke this tool correctly or interpret its results.

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

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

While the schema has 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions are generic and largely irrelevant to parsing a GitHub URL. For example, 'city' is described as a weather hint and 'zone' as a timezone name, yet the tool is supposed to parse owner and repo. The 'url' parameter is the only one that aligns with the purpose, but the other 8 parameters are misleading.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('GitHub URL'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like figma-url-shape or domain-shape. The intent is unambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or figma-url-shape. The description does not mention conditions, limitations, or when not to use it.

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

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

The description discloses that titles are discarded, but it does not explain the return format, that all parameters appear optional/ignored, or any side effects. With no annotations, this leaves important behavior unspecified.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. There is no redundant or extraneous content.

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

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

Given the confusing parameter list and absent output schema, the description does not sufficiently explain how to call the tool or what result to expect. It omits return format, parameter relevance, and edge-case 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?

The schema lists nine optional parameters with descriptions completely unrelated to counting Hacker News stories (Git refs, URLs, cities, timezones, etc.). The tool description provides no clarification of whether these parameters are meaningful, making the interface 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 clearly states the tool counts current Hacker News front-page stories, giving a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'Titles discarded' adds a minor limitation, but the core purpose is immediately understandable.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as web-fetch or fetch-status, or whether the optional parameters should be supplied. The description lacks any usage 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 present, so the description must carry behavior disclosure, but it does not. It fails to state whether the tool returns zones, validates input, normalizes names, or behaves read-only, and it gives no context for the seven parameters, 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?

The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks any structural elements such as what the tool returns, how inputs are used, or how it relates to sibling timezone tools.

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 parameters that appear unrelated to the stated timezone purpose, the description is far too incomplete for an agent to select or invoke this tool confidently. Critical information about return values, expected input relationships, and behavioral guarantees is missing entirely.

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 seven parameters individually, so schema coverage is high and supports a baseline score of 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics and does not explain why timezone names relate to parameters like url, json, or path, but the schema descriptions are individually clear.

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'—rather than a statement of what the tool does with inputs or outputs. It vaguely restates the tool name and does not distinguish it from siblings like timezone or utc-time, especially since the schema properties (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) are unrelated to IANA timezone names.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only hint is 'for clock calls,' which weakly implies a relationship to clock-related siblings, but no alternative tool is named and no exclusion criteria are given.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a read-only fetch and a restricted output ('group counts only'), and 'public' implies no authentication, but it says nothing about failure behavior, redirects/timeouts, or the fact that most input params are ignored. This is not enough behavioral transparency for a standalone 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?

A single sentence with no filler. 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only' is front-loaded and every word earns its place. The 'only' is a meaningful constraint rather than padding.

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 params, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling list, a 10-word description is not viable. It fails to state which parameter to populate, what the returned 'group counts' structure is, how the robots.txt URL is derived, or whether missing robots.txt is an error or returns zero counts.

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 params have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3, but none of those descriptions mention robots.txt or 'group counts'. The description does not map `url` or `host` to the robots file, leaving the agent unable to tell which parameter actually drives the fetch. This ambiguity outweighs the high schema coverage.

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 ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('public robots.txt'), with 'group counts only' clarifying the output scope. It is distinguishable from generic sibling fetch tools because it targets robots.txt specifically, but it does not name the sibling or the param that selects the target file.

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 like web-fetch or fetch-status. An agent can infer that it is for robots.txt summaries, but the description never says 'use this for group counts; use another tool for raw content' or states 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?

The description discloses that the key is 'discarded', which hints at non-retention, but it does not explain what the tool returns, whether it accepts/rejects malformed keys, whether it makes external calls, or any side effects. With no annotations present, the description carrys the full behavioral burden and falls short.

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

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

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence and a behavioral note in the second. No words are wasted, though the second sentence adds little beyond what the schema descriptions already imply.

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 annotations, no output schema, and seven parameters, this two-sentence description is far from complete. It omits the expected result format, parameter mapping, and any error or validation semantics, leaving a critical invocation gap.

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 says 'Check a Jira issue key shape', yet the input schema contains no 'key' parameter. The seven parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) are individually described in the schema, but none is tied to a Jira issue key, and the description does not bridge that gap. This leaves the agent unable to determine which parameter 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape'. This makes the basic intent obvious and helps distinguish it from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, it does not specify what constitutes a valid shape or which input carries the key, so a bit of ambiguity remains.

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?

It implies use when a Jira issue key shape check is needed, but provides no guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to related tools such as normalize-url or validate-json. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the body is discarded, which is useful, but omits essential network-check behaviors: redirects, timeouts, error handling, authentication, and return format. This is a significant gap for a URL-status 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 concise, with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence and no filler. However, it is so terse that it fails to address the tool's actual complexity, making it more under-specified than efficiently concise.

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 eight parameters, the description is markedly incomplete. It does not explain which parameters should be supplied, what the response looks like beyond 'HTTP status', or how the tool relates to nearby siblings. Critical context for correct invocation is missing.

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

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

All eight parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the 100% coverage baseline of 3 applies. The description implies that 'url' is the relevant parameter, but it does not clarify the role of the other seven parameters, creating confusion about which inputs are actually needed.

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: it returns the HTTP status for a public library docs URL, with the body discarded. This is clear enough to understand the core operation, though it does not differentiate the tool from sibling status-checking tools or explain the unrelated-looking 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 provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. The only hint is the 'public library docs' qualifier, which is too vague to route an agent reliably.

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 values are discarded, but it does not state whether the count is top-level only, what the return value looks like, or whether there are any side effects. The 'values discarded' note is useful but minimal.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the value-discarding behavior 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?

Despite its brevity, the tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not say that the input object itself is presumably the JSON object being counted, nor does it clarify what a caller should pass to get a useful result. For an agent to invoke this correctly, too much is left ambiguous.

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 schema description, those descriptions read like snippets from unrelated tools (city, feed, zone, query) and do not explain how any of them relate to counting keys in a JSON object. The 'json' parameter is described as 'JSON text to validate', not as the object whose keys should be counted, so the schema does not actually clarify invocation.

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 operation: count keys in a JSON object, with the notable behavioral note that values are discarded. This is clear enough to distinguish the tool's core action from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from other JSON- or count-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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate-json or other shape-checking siblings. The description does not explain why one would want to count keys, what kind of JSON object is expected, or how the nine optional parameters should be chosen.

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 reveals the behavior of dropping query and fragment, but it doesn't mention that many of the schema parameters appear unused, leaving the agent guessing about side effects or error cases.

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 well-structured, comprising only two short sentences with no redundancy.

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

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

The description lacks essential context: no output format, no error handling, no clarification of the mismatched parameters, and no relationship to sibling tools.

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

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

The description adds no parameter information; the schema provides descriptions for all parameters, but they are inconsistent with the tool's purpose, and the description does not clarify which parameters are actually relevant.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns origin, host, and path and drops query and fragment, but it doesn't specify which parameter is the input, causing 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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as browser-url-ok 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It reveals only that no browser is launched, but does not say whether it makes a network request, returns a status, or performs a syntax check, nor any side effects or limits (auth, rate). This leaves the agent guessing about the actual mechanism and return contract.

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 front-load the purpose and add a meaningful caveat. No redundant words; every sentence contributes.

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 or output schema and no annotations, this two-sentence description is underspecified. It doesn't define what a positive/negative result means, doesn't explain the role of the seven parameters (several labeled 'discarded'), and doesn't map the behavior to any concrete signal. An agent could not confidently interpret the result or know which input to supply.

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

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

Schema descriptions cover 100% of the 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention any parameter or clarify which of the many inputs is relevant to a 'URL' check, but the schema already carries the parameter detail.

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 明确的 verb ('Check') and names the resource (a URL), and the second sentence distinguishes it from browser-based checks by noting no browser is launched. However, 'can be opened' is ambiguous—it could mean HTTP reachability, valid syntax, or renderability—so it does not fully discriminate from siblings like normalize-url or 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?

No sentence states when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The 'No browser' caveat implies it is lighter-weight than browser-url-ok, but there is no explicit routing or excluded cases, and siblings like fetch-status and normalize-url are not referenced.

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 the important behavior that the query is discarded, which suggests no persistence and helps the agent understand side effects. With no annotations present, the description carries much of the transparency burden, but it omits any mention of return value, error cases, or limits. It is not misleading, but it is 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, and the disposal behavior in the second. There is no wasted text, every sentence adds information, and the structure is 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 description is too incomplete for an agent to invoke this tool safely or correctly. The schema's seven parameters appear unrelated to the described 'search query' behavior, there is no explicit return-value description, no output schema, and no clear indication of which parameter should be passed. For a simple tool this could have been sufficient with matching parameters, but the mismatch makes the overall context incomplete.

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

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

The input schema lists seven string parameters, each with its own description, but none is labeled as a search query. The tool description says to count characters in a search query, yet it never explains which parameter supplies that query or how the parameters relate to the described behavior. Since schema description coverage is high, the baseline would be 3, but the semantic mismatch between the tool description and the parameters reduces the practical value to 2.

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: count characters in a search query, and adds that the query is discarded. This distinguishes it from many sibling tools by naming the resource ('search query') and the operation ('count characters'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar counting tools like memory-key-count, and it conflicts with the schema by never identifying which input parameter represents the query.

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 description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools such as validate-json or normalize-url. An agent has no context to decide whether this is the right tool for a given search-related 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'short' and 'common,' implying limited scope, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what it does with the supplied resources, whether it performs network or filesystem access, or what response shape to expect.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no waste, which is good, but it is under-specified for a tool with seven parameters and no output schema. It is not bloated, yet the structure does not convey the required operational context.

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

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

With no output schema, no annotations, and seven input parameters, a one-sentence noun phrase is nowhere near sufficient. The description never states what the tool returns, how inputs influence the result, or why the parameters exist, leaving the agent to guess before invoking it.

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 already have individual schema descriptions (full schema coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain how the parameters relate to the 'catalog' concept, but the schema compensates for most param 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 identifies the domain (HTTP status codes) and the artifact type (a short catalog), but it is a noun phrase rather than a concrete operation. It does not say what the tool does with its inputs or how it differs from sibling tools such as 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It names no siblings, no exclusions, and no decision criteria, so an agent cannot determine whether to select status-catalog or fetch-status/normalize-url 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.

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden. 'Prompt discarded' is a useful behavioral disclosure, indicating the output is a fixed template independent of input. However, it is ambiguous whether 'prompt' means the entire user input or a separate prompt parameter, and it does not explicitly state that all listed parameters are ignored. The schema's per-parameter 'discarded' notes are consistent, but the description could be more 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, each earning its place. The core purpose is stated first, followed by the critical discarding behavior. 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?

The large input schema (8 parameters) with varied intended uses (shape checks, weather hints, normalization) is not reconciled with the description. An agent will be confused why these parameters exist if the prompt is simply discarded. The description should clarify that all input parameters are ignored and the template is always the same, but this is missing. The return value is vaguely described as a 'three-step thinking template' with no format detail.

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

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

All parameters have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is high (100%). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents each parameter adequately.

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: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is specific and distinguishes the tool from the sibling shape-check and URL utilities. The added 'Prompt discarded' clarifies that the tool does not process the prompt, making the purpose even more precise.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many siblings. It does not say 'use this when you need a thinking template' or mention any alternatives. The only context is the discarding behavior, which is not a usage guideline.

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 says only what the result should be, not how the timezone name is supplied, what the output format is, or what happens with the eight unrelated schema parameters. The mismatch between description and schema makes actual behavior opaque and potentially misleading.

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

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

The description is one short sentence with the key concept front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, though the conciseness sacrifices critical contract information.

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 exposes eight unrelated parameters, has no output schema, and has no annotations, so a single-sentence description is completely inadequate. It does not cover accepted timezone formats, return shape, failure modes, or how the schema relates to the stated 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?

Every parameter has a schema description, but none of them describes a timezone input. The description adds no mapping between 'named IANA timezone' and any property, and the closest candidate ('city' for a weather hint) is explicitly discarded. An agent cannot infer which parameter to populate.

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 operation—returning the current time for a named IANA timezone—so it is not a tautology and sounds distinct from a generic clock. However, the input schema provides no timezone parameter at all, so the stated purpose does not match the call contract an agent actually sees.

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 'current time in a named IANA timezone' implies when the tool would be used, but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. It also gives no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

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 is the main source of behavioral information, and 'Current UTC timestamp' provides a simple and accurate indication of a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly disclose that the nine optional parameters are effectively ignored or discarded, which is a notable behavioral detail given the input schema.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, using a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple timestamp tool, though it could be slightly expanded to clarify parameter irrelevance and return format without becoming verbose.

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 terse given the complexity of the input schema and the absence of an output schema. It does not specify whether the timestamp is returned as Unix time, ISO 8601, or another format, and it does not clarify that the accepted parameters are unrelated to the returned time.

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 input schema already documents all nine parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 returns the 'Current UTC timestamp', which is a specific and useful characterization of its purpose. It is distinguishable at a basic level from siblings like 'timezone' and 'iana-zones', though it lacks an explicit verb and does not outline parameter behavior.

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

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

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', nor does it explain that this tool should be used for a current UTC timestamp rather than timezone conversions.

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 usefully discloses that the body is discarded, implying no data retention, but it does not explain the return value, whether invalid JSON produces an error or a false result, or how strict validation is.

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 wasted words; the purpose is front-loaded and the disposal behavior is stated immediately. The description is concise and to the point.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too minimal. It does not state which parameter represents the JSON body, what a successful or failed validation looks like, or whether the tool returns a boolean, a report, or an error. These gaps make it incomplete for safe autonomous 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented and the description need not repeat them. The description adds only the vague term 'body' while the schema clearly identifies the 'json' parameter as the JSON text to validate, but it does not clarify which of the 9 optional parameters should be 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 states a specific action and resource: checking whether a body is valid JSON. It is clearly distinct from sibling shape-checking tools like domain-shape or jira-key-shape, though it does not name an alternative.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use validate-json versus sibling shape-check tools, and no exclusions or conditions are mentioned. The description only defines what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. 'via Open-Meteo' is a useful behavioral disclosure, implying a live external network call with its usual failure modes, and read-only character is inferable from 'Current temperature'. However, return format, units, and error behavior for unknown cities are not 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?

A single eight-word sentence that front-loads the resource, scope, and data source. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, restatement of the schema, or low-value preamble.

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?

Complexity is low and the core invocation is guessable from 'city', but the bloated shared schema, absent annotations, and absent output schema leave units and response shape unspecified. It is adequate for a low-stakes read tool yet carries clear gaps an agent must resolve by trial.

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 schema already documents every parameter including 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call'. The description adds only the word 'city', marginally reinforcing which of the ten parameters matters, but it does not compensate for the nine irrelevant shared-schema parameters that could mislead an agent.

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, current temperature for a city, and the data provider (Open-Meteo), which distinguishes it from siblings like geo-hint or lib-docs-hint by subject. It lacks an explicit verb ('get'/'fetch') and leaves the relationship to the 10-parameter schema implicit, 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 guidance on when to prefer weather-hint over nearby siblings such as geo-hint, utc-time, or web-fetch, and no exclusions or context like 'use for quick lookups, not forecasts'. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the bare description.

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

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

The description adds one important behavioral trait—'Body discarded'—which sets expectations about output scope. However, with no annotations present, it does not disclose other relevant behaviors such as whether external network requests are made, timeout behavior, redirects, or response failure modes.

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

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

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It would earn a 5 if it included the missing param guidance without sacrificing brevity.

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

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the tool, but it leaves important usage details unstated. The diverse schema parameters and the lack of distinction from sibling tools make this incomplete for safe and correct selection.

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

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

Although the schema has descriptions for every parameter, those descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose (e.g., url says 'normalize or cite', city refers to weather hints, json is for validation). The tool description does not clarify which parameter should actually be used for the URL fetch or how the unrelated parameters relate to calling this 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 tool returns HTTP status and content type for a public URL and that the body is discarded. It is specific enough to convey the core behavior, though it does not differentiate web-fetch from the sibling fetch-status or other URL-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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. The description only states what the tool does, with no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references.

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 bears the transparency burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral trait: 'Title discarded after the call,' which implies a read-only, non-retaining operation. However, it does not describe the response meaning, possible side effects, network behavior, or error cases, so the disclosure is 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 short and front-loaded, with no filler words. Both sentences carry information. However, the brevity masks severe under-specification, and the discard statement does not repair the missing mapping between the purpose and 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?

Given seven schema properties, no output schema, no annotations, and a description that references a title parameter which doesn't appear in the schema, an agent has almost no chance to call the tool correctly. The description does not define any meaningful return contract or usage conditions and is therefore inadequate.

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 never explains which parameter holds the Wikipedia title, and in fact the schema has no 'title' property at all. The provided parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) are described in the schema but appear irrelevant to the stated purpose, so an agent cannot determine what input to supply. This is a critical semantic gap.

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: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' That is a clear purpose and it is distinguishable from sibling shape-checkers by name and a plain-language, but the lack of any connection to the actual input schema introduces ambiguity about how the title is supplied.

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 sibling tools such as web-fetch, normalize-url, or the many shape-checkers. The intended context is only implied by the name and the word 'Wikipedia'; there are no prerequisites, exclusion, or alternative routing instructions.

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