Asia/Samarkand clock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no browser is launched, but it does not explain what actually happens to the many parameters (e.g., are they all validated? Why does a URL check accept a timezone?). The description is inconsistent with the parameter set, implying behavior that is not true to the tool's actual function.

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

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

The description is short (one sentence), but it is under-specified. It lacks essential details about the tool's real purpose and behavior. This is not appropriate conciseness but rather omission of critical 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?

With nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool checks, what outputs are produced, or how the parameters interact. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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

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

While the schema provides 100% coverage with individual parameter descriptions, the tool description does not add meaning beyond that. More importantly, the description's narrow focus on URLs contradicts the broad parameter set, leaving the agent confused about why city, json, and zone parameters exist. The schema descriptions are clear, but the tool-level description fails to unify them.

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

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

The description says 'Check whether a URL can be opened,' which is a clear verb and resource, but the input schema includes nine unrelated parameters (city, json, zone, query, etc.) that are not about opening a URL. The description does not reflect the tool's actual scope, making it misleading and not distinguishing it 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does (or claims to do) without any exclusions or contextual cues. Given the sibling list includes many specialized validators, the agent has no way to choose this over others.

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

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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'Page content is not stored,' which is a minor safety note. There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explain side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens to the other parameters (e.g., city, json, path). The behavior for non-URL inputs is entirely undisclosed.

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

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

The description is concise at two sentences with no fluff. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. Conciseness without completeness is not a strength; the structure is acceptable but the content is insufficient.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It explains only the URL case and says nothing about the remaining parameters, the response format, or edge cases. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool for inputs other than a simple URL.

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

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

The schema describes each parameter individually with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how parameters relate to the tool's function beyond mentioning 'URL.' It does not clarify which parameters are active for the stated purpose or how the others are handled, but the schema already provides basic semantics.

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

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

The description states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is specific and distinct from many siblings. However, it does not mention the other eight parameters in the schema, which suggest a broader or multi-purpose function. The tool name 'citation' adds ambiguity, and the description does not clarify how the additional parameters relate to the stated purpose, making the scope unclear.

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 like fetch-status, normalize-url, or browser-url-ok. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. An agent would have no basis to choose this tool over siblings that also deal with URLs and HTTP 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy note, but it does not disclose the actual behavior, side effects, output format, or any side effects. The tool's core behavior is completely unexplained.

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 it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to front-load essential information about what the tool does or returns, making it inadequate for an agent.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides almost no context. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, what it returns, or how to interpret the response. This is severely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description states 'Show how this request is classified' but provides no detail on what classification means, what categories exist, or what the output looks like. It is not a tautology, but it is too vague to distinguish from the many sibling shape/check tools (e.g., domain-shape, figma-url-shape, 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus any sibling. There is no mention of scenarios, alternatives, or exclusions. The description gives no context for selecting it among the 27 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?

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and a non-goal (no WHOIS/ownership), but omits any details about return format, error handling, side effects, or how the nine parameters are used. This is a significant gap for a tool with this many parameters.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation, though it could be expanded with more context 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It does not indicate which parameter is primary, what the output looks like, or how it relates to sibling shape tools. An agent would struggle to know exactly what to pass and what to expect.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a documented purpose in the schema. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does not enrich 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 a specific verb ('Split') and resource ('hostname into labels'), and adds a clarifying exclusion ('without WHOIS or ownership data') that hints at a boundary. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling shape-checking tools like figma-url-shape or github-repo-shape, so it misses the top score.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where it is preferred over other shape tools or URL/domain utilities. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions that the path is discarded, which is a minor detail, and does not explain what 'parsing' entails, what happens for invalid URLs, whether it returns a boolean or normalized string, or any side effects. The description is far too sparse for a tool with no annotation support.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, with only two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and wastes no words. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, but for the dimension of conciseness, it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no context about what the tool returns, what constitutes a valid Figma URL, or how the parameters are used. It is far from complete for an agent to call it correctly without guessing. The tool is a shape checker, but the description does not even say it validates or returns a boolean.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no value beyond the schema; it does not clarify which parameters are relevant to Figma URL parsing or how they interact. The 'Path discarded' note might even be misinterpreted as referring to the 'path' parameter, but that parameter's schema describes a file path, not a URL path. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameters.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling shape checkers like 'github-repo-shape' or 'jira-key-shape'. However, 'parse' is ambiguous – it could mean validate, extract, or normalize, and the second sentence 'Path discarded' is unclear about whether it refers to the URL path or the 'path' parameter.

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 the many sibling shape-checking tools (e.g., domain-shape, github-repo-shape, wiki-title-ok). It does not state any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the tool's purpose from its name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions lat/long, but the schema parameters describe a variety of shape checks (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), implying the tool is a generic validator. This is misleading—an agent would expect only geocoding behavior and would not know the tool also handles URL, JSON, file paths, etc. The description fails to disclose the true scope.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient. However, given the tool's 9-parameter complexity, this brevity leads to under-specification. The structure does not front-load important context or separate the primary geocoding function from the other shape-check capabilities implied by the schema.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is the sole source of contextual information. It covers only one narrow function and omits the tool's other apparent behaviors, return format, error conditions, and any usage constraints. This is severely incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly across its possible uses.

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 clarify which parameter is used for the lat/long functionality (presumably 'city', but not stated). While the schema has 100% coverage with individual parameter descriptions, the tool description adds no value in explaining how parameters relate to the stated purpose. The mismatch between the description and schema further confuses 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 'Latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo,' which is a specific and clear function, but the schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) that suggest the tool does much more than geocoding. This makes the stated purpose incomplete and potentially misleading, and it does not differentiate from siblings like weather-hint beyond the obvious lat/long distinction.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context for when geocoding is needed, nor any exclusions or conditions. An agent cannot infer when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like weather-hint or timezone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that only the 'url' parameter is relevant, that other parameters are discarded, or what the tool returns. There is no indication of validation, side effects, or error behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the expected input format, return value, or behavior when non-URL parameters are supplied. An agent would not be able to call this tool correctly without additional information.

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

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

Although the schema provides descriptions for all nine parameters, the tool description does not connect its stated purpose to any specific parameter. It does not clarify that 'url' is the relevant input, leaving the agent to guess which of the nine fields 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL. This distinguishes it from siblings like jira-key-shape and figma-url-shape by naming the specific domain. However, it does not specify which input parameter should contain the URL, leaving some ambiguity given the schema has nine unrelated fields.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The description does not mention exclusions or provide context for selecting this tool among the many 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?

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action and a cryptic note about titles, but does not mention that the tool likely makes a network request, returns a numeric count, or has any rate limits or side effects. The lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is concise at two short sentences, front-loading the main action. However, the second sentence 'Titles discarded' is cryptic and does not add clear value. Still, for a simple tool, the brevity is acceptable; it is not padded with filler.

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

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

The description is severely incomplete. It does not specify the return value or output format, which is especially important since there is no output schema. It also fails to explain how the optional parameters affect the behavior. Given the tool has nine optional parameters and no required ones, the description gives the agent almost no basis to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Although the input schema fully documents each parameter (100% coverage), the description adds no meaning about how these nine parameters relate to the count operation. The parameters seem unrelated to counting HN stories (e.g., city, zone, query), and the description does not clarify their purpose or whether any are used. This creates confusion rather than helping.

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, specifying the verb 'Count' and the resource 'Hacker News front-page'. The phrase 'Titles discarded' adds a subtle detail that differentiates it from tools that might return titles, and it is distinct from the sibling tools which focus on URLs, shapes, or validation.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not mention any context in which this tool is preferred over, say, web-fetch or fetch-status. The agent is left without clues about selection criteria.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the body is discarded, but does not mention network calls, side effects, permissions, or how the various parameters are consumed. The broad schema is not reconciled with the stated purpose, potentially misleading the agent.

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

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

The description is concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It omits critical information about the tool's actual behavior and scope, making it too short to serve its purpose effectively.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, which parameters are relevant, or how the tool interacts with external resources, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description, earning a baseline of 3. However, the tool description adds no context on how parameters relate to the stated purpose; the mismatch between the URL-specific description and unrelated parameters reduces its value.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('HTTP status for a public library docs URL'), but the input schema includes nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.), making the tool's actual purpose ambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, and the mismatch between description and schema confuses an agent.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. No context, alternatives, or exclusion criteria are provided. The description is a single declarative sentence that 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one trait: 'Values discarded,' which indicates it only counts keys and ignores values. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, what happens with malformed JSON, or the return format. The parameter descriptions in the schema say some are 'discarded after the shape check,' but the tool description does not integrate that context. The disclosure is minimal and 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 very concise at two sentences, which is structurally front-loaded with the core action. However, conciseness is achieved at the expense of essential information—the tool omits how to provide the JSON object. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified. It earns a middle score because it is efficient yet lacks critical 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke the tool, what the return value looks like, or which parameter is relevant. An agent cannot correctly call this tool based on the description alone. The description is far from the minimum viable for this complexity.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the tool description adds no meaningful linkage between the parameters and the tool's purpose. It never mentions which parameter is the JSON object to inspect. The schema descriptions are also terse (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'), but the tool description does not build on them. With 9 optional parameters and no required ones, the agent has no clue which parameter to pass. The description adds no value beyond the schema and actually leaves the mapping ambiguous.

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

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

The description states a specific action: 'Count keys in a JSON object.' That is a clear verb+resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like validate-json. However, it fails to specify which of the 9 parameters holds the JSON object, leaving the actual invocation ambiguous. The tool name 'memory-key-count' suggests a narrow scope, but the description does not clarify that the 'json' parameter is the intended input.

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 vs alternatives. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or context. The description gives no hint about whether to use this instead of validate-json or other JSON-related tools. An agent is left to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

The description discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful. However, it does not explain that all parameters other than 'url' are ignored or that the tool may perform unrelated checks (based on parameter descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check'). Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden but leaves key behaviors unclear.

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

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

The description is a single, short sentence, which is concise. However, brevity here sacrifices necessary detail about which parameter to use, making the structure insufficient rather than efficient.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not specify which parameter is the URL, what happens if invalid input is given, or how the output is formatted. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly.

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

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

The description says nothing about parameters. While schema coverage is 100%, the schema lists many parameters unrelated to URL normalization (city, zone, json, etc.), and only 'url' seems relevant. The description fails to clarify that 'url' is the only meaningful input, actively misleading the agent about the tool's actual interface.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (return origin, host, path) and the resource (a URL), and explicitly notes query and fragment are dropped. It is specific and actionable, though it does not distinguish itself from sibling URL-shape tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor which parameter should carry the URL. With 9 optional parameters and no required ones, an agent has no way to know that 'url' is the intended input, making usage ambiguous.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It claims to check if a URL can be opened but then says 'No browser is launched', which is contradictory and leaves unclear what mechanism is used. It does not disclose whether it performs a network request, validates syntax, or returns a status. This is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is extremely brief (two sentences), but brevity is not conciseness; it omits critical information. The main claim is front-loaded, but the lack of detail makes it under-specified rather 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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, which parameters are relevant to the URL check, or how the other parameters are used. An agent cannot determine correct usage without external knowledge.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how the parameters relate to the URL check. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, though the tool description fails to clarify the purpose of the many seemingly unrelated parameters.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened'), but it is ambiguous about what 'opened' means (validity, reachability, HTTP status). It does not differentiate from siblings like 'browser-url-ok' or 'web-fetch', and the parameter list includes many unrelated fields (city, json, path) that are not explained. This is a clear but vague 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 given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. An agent has no way to know if this is preferable to 'browser-url-ok' or 'web-fetch'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the query is discarded, which is a privacy-related detail, but does not state what the tool returns (e.g., an integer count), whether it has side effects, or any error conditions. The behavior is minimally described, leaving significant gaps for an agent that needs to interpret the 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 zero fluff. It states the action and a key behavioral fact (discard) efficiently. Every word earns its place, making it very 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, many of which appear irrelevant (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) and are clearly intended for other tools in a shared schema. The description does not clarify that only the 'query' parameter is used, which could lead an agent to pass unnecessary arguments. Additionally, there is no mention of the output format (e.g., a number) since there is no output schema. Given the complexity of the schema, the description is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all 9 parameters are documented in the schema, including 'query' which is described as 'Search text; discarded after the length check'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it just references the search query without explicitly mapping to the 'query' parameter. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, though the description does not help disambiguate which of the many parameters are actually relevant to 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 action (count characters) and the resource (search query), making the tool's core purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like domain-shape or jira-key-shape, all of which appear to be shape-check/validation tools with similar one-line descriptions. The name itself hints at the specific use, but the description doesn't name any alternatives.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description is a single sentence with no context about scenarios where this tool is appropriate. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions 'Prompt discarded' without detailing side effects, errors, or what happens with the input parameters. It does not reveal that the tool likely performs shape checks or validation, nor does it describe any output format beyond a vague 'template'.

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

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

The description is extremely brief, which is concise, but it lacks substance and fails to front-load key information. It is under-specified, leaving critical aspects unexplained, so it does not earn a higher score for effective conciseness.

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

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

Given nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotation support, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the template is for, how the parameters are used, or any success/failure behavior, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's purpose and that they are discarded. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, but the baseline 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Return a three-step thinking template'), but it doesn't explain the role of the nine parameters or how this tool relates to its many shape-checking siblings. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds confusion rather than clarity, making the tool's true purpose 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to guess when 'think-steps' is appropriate among the numerous sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does not mention that the tool ignores all parameters except zone, nor does it state whether the operation is read-only or what output format is returned. This is a significant gap for a tool with many parameters.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential context about parameter usage and output, making it less a model of conciseness and more an under-specification that forces the agent to parse the schema for critical 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only mentions timezone lookup, leaving the agent unaware that other parameters exist and are ignored, how to structure the call, or what the response contains. This is critically incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides; it doesn't clarify that only zone is relevant or that other parameters are discarded. This fails to compensate for the schema's broad surface area.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Current time' in a 'named IANA timezone'. It clearly indicates the core function, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like utc-time or iana-zones, which weakens clarity slightly.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of utc-time for UTC or iana-zones for listing zones, and no conditions or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the schema, which is insufficient.

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 not disclose that all parameters are optional and discarded after shape checks, nor that the parameters do not affect the returned timestamp. This is a significant omission for a tool with nine parameters.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at one sentence, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is front-loaded with the main purpose but omits critical context needed for correct usage.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the role of parameters, the return format, or any behavioral nuances, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The schema itself explains parameters are discarded, but the tool's description does not explain why these parameters exist or how they relate to the UTC timestamp, leaving agents confused about 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 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the core function with a specific resource (UTC time). However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', and the presence of many unrelated parameters muddies the purpose slightly.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions for use, exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like timezone or iana-zones.

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 full burden. It only mentions temperature for a city but does not disclose what happens with the other eight parameters (e.g., whether they are ignored or cause errors), nor any side effects or required permissions.

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 fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and a broader schema. The brevity comes at the cost of clarity about the tool's full scope.

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

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

Given the complexity of nine parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify how the tool handles non-city parameters, what it returns, or any limitations. The schema partially compensates, but the description leaves major gaps.

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 parameters in detail (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation.

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 (get current temperature) and resource (city via Open-Meteo). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like geo-hint or timezone, which might overlap in purpose for location-based hints.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or context, leaving the agent to infer that it is for weather queries only.

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 full burden. It discloses that the body is discarded, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error behavior, network implications, or whether authentication is required (implied by 'public URL'). It adds some transparency but leaves gaps for a tool that makes external requests.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the core purpose and the key behavioral note (body discarded) immediately. Excellent conciseness and 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value. It says 'HTTP status and content type,' which is sufficient for the output. However, with 9 parameters and no guidance on which to use, the description is incomplete for an agent trying to form a correct call. It fails to note that most parameters are irrelevant, leaving the agent uncertain. Given the simplicity of the operation, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It implies 'url' is the primary parameter but does not clarify that the other eight parameters are decoys or discarded. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'HTTP status and content type for a public URL.' It is clear and distinct enough for the core action. It does not name sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, so it lacks explicit differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (fetch-status, browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, normalize-url, etc.). The description only states what it does, not when to choose it. With 27 siblings, explicit routing is essential but absent.

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. The only disclosed behavior is 'Title discarded after the call,' which refers to a nonexistent parameter. There is no mention of side effects, return value, or failure behavior, making the tool's runtime behavior largely opaque.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence), but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks critical information needed to use the tool correctly, and the mention of 'title' without a corresponding parameter is misleading.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain what the tool does with these inputs, which inputs are relevant, or what a successful check returns. This is severely inadequate for an agent to call 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?

While the schema itself has 100% parameter description coverage, the tool description fails to connect any of the nine parameters to the stated purpose of checking a Wikipedia title. The descriptions are generic and do not explain how a caller would supply the title, so the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema and actually creates confusion.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('check whether a Wikipedia title exists'), but the input schema contains no parameter for a Wikipedia title. The parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are generic and unrelated to Wikipedia titles, making the purpose unclear and not actionable.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling check tools (e.g., browser-url-ok, file-path-ok, normalize-url). The description offers no context, conditions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess.

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