Asia/Singapore clock

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

The description discloses the side effect that 'Page content is not stored,' which is useful for trust. However, it does not mention other relevant behaviors such as network requests, potential failures, or whether the tool performs any caching or logging. With no annotations to rely on, this is a moderate level of transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, using only two short sentences to convey the core action and a key side-effect note. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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

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

The description lacks essential context for an agent to use the tool correctly. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the output, what the expected input format is (beyond 'HTTPS URL'), or what the output schema looks like (no output schema is provided). The mismatch between the description and parameters further reduces completeness, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 parameter descriptions are brief and largely disconnected from the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name,' which have no obvious relation to returning host, scheme, or HTTP status. The 'url' and 'host' descriptions are somewhat relevant but still vague (e.g., 'Public hostname' is unclear). Overall, the parameters do not coherently map to the described functionality.

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 verb 'Return' and the specific output ('host, scheme, and HTTP status') for a URL, which is a distinct action. However, the presence of unrelated parameters (json, zone) creates some ambiguity about the tool's exact scope, but the core purpose remains understandable.

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

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

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'normalize-url' or 'validate-json'. It only states a factual output and a negative note about not storing content, but no explicit conditions or use cases 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'No identifiers are retained' adds one useful privacy trait, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what inputs are actually used, what side effects occur, or what the classification output looks like.

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

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

The description is one short sentence with no wasted words, and the privacy note is useful. However, it is concise at the expense of substance—conciseness cannot compensate for the absence of necessary meaning.

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, four heterogeneous optional parameters, and ten siblings, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what 'compatibility' means, what inputs are relevant, what the result is, or when to invoke this tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-level 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 'Show how this request is classified' has a verb and object, but 'this request' and 'classified' are undefined. It does not differentiate the tool from siblings like validate-json, domain-shape, or normalize-url, which also process requests.

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 rather than one of the ten siblings, no exclusion conditions, and no alternatives named. The description merely states an action without contextualizing 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a negative constraint (no WHOIS/ownership data), but doesn't mention side effects, error behavior, or the nature of the operation (read-only). Minimal transparency.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that immediately states the action and a key constraint. No wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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

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

For a tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify how the parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to splitting a hostname, which parameter to use, or what the output format is. Agents would be uncertain about 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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it doesn't indicate which parameter is primary or how they interact. With high schema coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the action: split a hostname into labels, and adds a constraint that it does not include WHOIS or ownership data. This makes the purpose specific and distinct from potential WHOIS-related tools, though it doesn't explicitly reference siblings.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or how it compares to sibling tools like normalize-url or inspect-robots. The agent is left without direction on selection.

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 not state whether the tool returns a list, validates input, performs a read-only lookup, or anything else about its behavior, side effects, or output.

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 has no wasted words, which is good, but it is a vague fragment rather than an informative tool definition. Its brevity comes from under-specification, not from efficiently covering the necessary 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?

With four optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several closely related sibling tools, the description is not sufficient for an agent to know how or when to invoke this tool. It does not explain the relationship between the timezone domain and the url/host/json parameters, nor what the response looks like.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and it fails to explain why url, host, and json appear alongside zone for a timezone-names tool. Baseline 3 applies because the schema 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 identifies the resource ('common IANA timezone names') and a use context ('for clock calls'), but it is a noun phrase with no verb stating what the tool actually does. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like timezone, utc-time, or tz-asia-singapore.

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?

'For clock calls' implies a usage context, suggesting this tool is relevant when working with IANA timezone names. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over timezone, utc-time, or tz-asia-singapore, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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

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

It discloses the main behavior (fetching a public robots.txt and returning counts), but with no annotations it does not address possible failures, redirects, blocking, or the fact that the URL parameter description appears mismatched with the actual purpose.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy; all words contribute to conveying the operation.

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

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

The description does not explain how to specify the robots.txt target (which parameter is authoritative), what the returned group counts look like, or how errors are handled, and there is no output schema to fill that 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?

Although every parameter has a description, the descriptions are mismatched: url is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than a robots.txt URL, and json/zone are unrelated to robots.txt inspection, making the parameters 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 action (fetch), target (public robots.txt), and output (group counts only), distinguishing it from sibling tools that normalize URLs or validate JSON. It lacks a title but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like normalize-url, domain-shape, or compatibility, nor does it mention prerequisites such as supplying a robots.txt URL.

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 full responsibility. It mentions dropping query and fragment, but does not explain behavior for invalid URLs, empty inputs, or whether the host is extracted from the URL or supplied separately.

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 unnecessary words. It communicates the main behavior efficiently.

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

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

There is no output schema, no example, and no error handling information. The mismatched parameter descriptions further reduce the completeness of the tool contract.

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 includes parameters 'host', 'json', and 'zone' with descriptions that are unrelated to normalizing a URL. The 'url' description is partially relevant, but the other parameters appear mismatched and would confuse an agent trying to call 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 that the tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the verb and resource are clear enough.

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 validate-json or timezone-related tools. There is no context about typical use cases or prerequisites.

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 discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, read-only nature, or error behavior. The agent has no information about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 contains no fluff. Every word is necessary, and the structure is clean and direct.

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 severe mismatch between the description and parameters, and the lack of any output schema or example, the description is far from complete. The agent lacks essential context about what the tool returns, how the parameters might be used, or why they are included.

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 all four parameters, but the parameter names and descriptions (url, host, json, zone) are completely unrelated to the stated purpose of an HTTP status code catalog. The description adds no meaning to resolve this mismatch, leaving the parameters confusing and potentially misleading.

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

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

The description states the tool is a 'short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which identifies the resource type but lacks a verb indicating what action the tool performs (e.g., get, list, search). The purpose is vague and does not clearly distinguish it from potential sibling 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or example scenarios, leaving the agent entirely without usage 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core read behavior ('Current time') but does not clarify whether the tool accepts or ignores the unrelated schema parameters url, host, and json, nor what happens for an invalid timezone name. The mismatch between the description and the broad schema is unaddressed, creating potential for confusion.

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

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately compact for a simple look-up tool. It loses a point because, given the schema inconsistency, a slightly longer description that flags the relevant parameter and the irrelevant ones would have been more useful without sacrificing 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or why the schema includes url/host/json. It also lacks guidance on how to choose between this tool and the nearby utc-time or tz-asia-singapore. Overall, the definition is incomplete for a tool with a four-parameter schema and near-identical siblings.

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 basic description in the schema. The tool description reinforces that 'zone' is the relevant parameter but adds no semantics beyond that. It provides no explanation for url, host, or json, which appear unrelated to timezone lookups; this missed clarity keeps the score at a baseline 3.

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

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

The description 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' clearly identifies a specific resource (a timezone's current time) and an implied retrieve action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like utc-time and tz-asia-singapore by indicating it covers arbitrary named IANA zones. However, it stops short of an explicit verb, making it slightly less crisp than a top-tier description.

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

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

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time, tz-asia-singapore, or iana-zones. The description does not state exclusions or selection criteria, leaving an agent to infer which tool fits a given request. Given the close siblings, explicit routing guidance is needed.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral expectations, but it only says 'current local time'. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if it performs network calls, or what output format 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 short sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical details about invocation and scope. It is too vague to be helpful despite its brevity.

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

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

The tool appears to be a specialized time lookup, but the description fails to specify input requirements, output structure, or how it differs from more general time tools. This incompleteness would likely lead to incorrect usage.

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

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

The schema descriptions for parameters are generic and unrelated to time (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'). The description does not explain how these parameters relate to retrieving the local time, so the agent cannot infer their purpose.

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

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

The description states it provides the current local time in Asia/Singapore, but the presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, json) makes the actual purpose ambiguous. It does not clarify whether this tool is fixed to that zone or if the zone parameter overrides it.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The description does not indicate any specific use case or prerequisites, leaving the agent without 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 behavioral details are described beyond the output. There are no annotations, and the description does not mention side effects, errors, or any edge cases (e.g., invalid 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 very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is too terse to be useful, and the lack of any structuring or elaboration reduces its effectiveness despite its brevity.

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

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

The description fails to provide essential context: no mention of when to use this tool, what the input parameters represent, how it relates to sibling tools, or what the output format is. The tool is incomplete for practical use.

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 explain the purpose of any of the four input parameters. The parameters (url, host, json, zone) appear irrelevant to a simple UTC timestamp fetch, providing no semantic meaning and likely causing misuse.

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' states a clear output, but does not specify how the tool is invoked or what it accepts. The input schema includes unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) that contradict the stated purpose, making the actual function 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 such as timezone or tz-asia-singapore. The description gives no context for invocation or expected input format.

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 body is discarded, which is helpful. However, since there are no annotations, it carries the full burden of revealing other behaviors, but no additional behavioral information is provided.

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, using only two sentences. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting necessary parameter explanations, which reduces its effectiveness.

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 to be a copy-paste error from another utility. The schema includes parameters that are irrelevant to JSON validation, and the description fails to provide a complete picture, leaving the agent unable to use it correctly.

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

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

The parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'IANA timezone name') are clearly mismatched with the tool's purpose, and the tool description does not clarify them at all.

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

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

The description states the core function (validate JSON) but the schema includes unrelated parameters (url, host, timezone) that are not mentioned, causing confusion about what the tool actually does.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without any context or examples.

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