Asia/Yerevan clock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns specific artifacts and notes that 'Task text discarded' – a behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention side effects, authentication needs, or what happens to the parameters, which is a gap for a tool with this many inputs.

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

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

Two sentences with zero redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the discarded-task note is a useful behavioral caveat. No waste.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It doesn't explain the role of parameters or when to invoke the tool, leaving an agent unclear about what input is needed and what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a complex 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how parameters influence the call or which are relevant. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 ('Find') and a specific resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), and lists the return content (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the unique resource name makes it distinct 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states the purpose but doesn't mention any sibling tools, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that no browser is launched, which is a useful trait, but it fails to explain what the check actually does (e.g., does it make an HTTP request, only validate syntax?) or what side effects might occur. The presence of nine unrelated parameters (ref, city, json, path, zone, etc.) is unexplained and suggests the tool has a broader scope than the description implies, creating confusion about its actual 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 concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, given the tool's complexity (nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is too sparse to be considered well-structured. It omits critical information about what the check entails and how parameters are used, making 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?

The description is far from complete for a tool with nine parameters and no annotations. It doesn't explain the return value (no output schema), doesn't clarify the purpose of the many parameters, and doesn't describe the exact nature of the URL check. An agent would struggle to know when to use this tool and what it actually does beyond a vague 'can be opened' check.

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

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

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't clarify how these parameters relate to the URL check or why they are accepted, but since the schema documents each one, the description's lack of additional info is not a significant failure.

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.' It also distinguishes itself by explicitly saying 'No browser is launched,' which sets it apart from tools like playwright-url-ok. However, it doesn't specify what 'can be opened' means (e.g., network reachability vs. format validation), and it doesn't name sibling alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like fetch-status, normalize-url, and web-fetch exist, but there is no mention of them or any conditions that would favor one over the other. The only hint is the 'No browser is launched' note, which implies it's a lightweight check, but this is not elaborated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic. Expression discarded.' which does not disclose what happens to the 9 parameters, what the tool returns, whether it is safe, or any side effects. It doesn't even clarify what 'discarded' means.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but brevity here is under-specification, not conciseness. It does not front-load useful information and leaves out all essential context. Every sentence is wasted because it introduces a misleading purpose.

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 provides almost no guidance on expected behavior, input-output relationships, or edge cases. This is completely inadequate for an agent to use 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaning to any parameter. More importantly, the parameters themselves are completely unrelated to the stated purpose ('arithmetic'), so the description fails to bridge the gap. An agent cannot infer how ref, url, city, etc. relate to evaluating arithmetic.

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 ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic'), but it is inconsistent with the parameter list, which contains URLs, city names, JSON, timezones, etc., none of which relate to arithmetic. It also doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'validate-json' or 'normalize-url'. The phrase 'Expression discarded' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. No context, no exclusions, no mention of alternatives. An agent has no way to decide between calc-eval and any other tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'Page content is not stored,' which is a behavioral note, but it does not explain other behaviors such as whether it makes a network request, rate limits, or how the many other parameters are handled. The schema hints at shape checks but the description does not elaborate.

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

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

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose, and it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke the tool (which parameters to provide), what the output format looks like, or whether the other parameters are ignored. The description only covers a URL scenario but leaves the rest ambiguous.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify that only the 'url' parameter is relevant and the others are decoys or discarded. The schema already describes each parameter, but the description fails to guide which to use.

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 purpose: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'fetch-status' or 'web-fetch,' which may also return HTTP status, so it loses a point for missing explicit differentiation.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools. An agent has no information about whether to choose this over 'fetch-status' or 'normalize-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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No identifiers are retained', which is a privacy note, but does not explain whether the tool performs network calls, modifies state, or what 'classification' entails. The schema hints at checks ('discarded after the shape check') but the description does not synthesize this into clear behavioral expectations.

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

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

The description is two sentences and concise, but it is under-specified. It does not front-load actionable information; the privacy note is the only concrete detail. The brevity does not compensate for the lack of content – it is not efficiently informative but simply short.

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

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

This is a complex tool with 9 optional parameters and many sibling tools, but the description gives no indication of what the tool returns, how it classifies, or when it should be used. There is no output schema, so the description should explain the output format or behavior, but it does not. It is grossly incomplete for an agent to call it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters; it does not explain how they relate or what 'classification' means in terms of them. It neither improves nor degrades the schema's already detailed per-parameter descriptions.

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

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

The description says 'Show how this request is classified' but does not specify what classification means, what categories exist, or what the tool actually does. It is not a tautology, but it is vague and does not distinguish from siblings like domain-shape or browser-url-ok, which have specific purposes.

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. No sibling tools are mentioned, no conditions are given, and there is no exclusion criteria. An agent has no way to know if this tool is appropriate for a given request.

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 fully disclose behavior. It only says 'HEAD a public URL' and does not mention that other parameters are discarded or that the tool performs various shape checks. It also fails to mention side effects, permissions, or the fact that it likely returns only a status code. The description is misleading because it implies URL-only behavior while the schema includes unrelated fields.

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 with no wasted words, which is efficient in isolation. However, for a tool with 9 parameters and many siblings, it is severely under-specified. It is concise but not appropriately sized; it omits essential context that would justify its length.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema, numerous siblings), the description is grossly incomplete. It only explains a narrow URL-status scenario and provides no information about the other parameters, return format, or intended use cases. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning or connections between parameters; it only mentions 'url' implicitly. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 (HEAD a public URL and return status only), which is clear and not a tautology. However, the input schema lists 9 parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) that are not mentioned in the description, implying the tool does far more than just check a URL. This ambiguity undermines clarity and differentiation from siblings like browser-url-ok and normalize-url.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools, exclusions, or preferred contexts. An agent seeing many similar tools (e.g., browser-url-ok, normalize-url, validate-json) has no basis for choosing this one.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful behavior ('No disk access') implying a safe, read-only operation, but it does not explain what 'safe' means, how validation behaves, or what the return value is. This is minimal coverage for a tool that presumably performs a check.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Check whether a path looks safe'), and the behavioral note ('No disk access') is placed second. Every word earns its place.

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

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

The tool has nine parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description only addresses the path parameter. It does not explain the purpose of the other eight parameters, how they relate to the tool, or what the expected output is. This is a critical omission for an agent trying to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents every parameter, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; it does not mention the path parameter or any of the other eight parameters. It neither enhances nor conflicts with the schema, so a neutral score is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('path'), and clarifies it checks for safety without disk access. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser-url-ok (URLs) and domain-shape (domains), so an agent can tell it apart.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explicitly state 'use for file paths only' or mention any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer the intended use 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'via Open-Meteo', implying a network call, but doesn't disclose that most parameters are discarded, that only certain inputs yield lat/long, or that the tool may behave differently for different inputs. The schema descriptions for parameters like 'city' ('discarded after the call') contradict the stated purpose of providing geocoordinates, so the description is misleading.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits essential details about usage and parameter mapping. It front-loads 'Latitude and longitude for a place' but adds little else; the phrase 'via Open-Meteo' is extraneous without context on how it relates to the inputs. It is 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?

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives no information about which parameters to supply, how to combine them, what the response format looks like, or error conditions. For a tool with this complexity and ambiguity, the description is grossly incomplete and insufficient 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 documents each parameter, but the tool description adds no mapping between its stated purpose and any specific parameter. It doesn't clarify which parameter is the 'place' (e.g., city, query, or url). The schema descriptions themselves suggest this is a generic validation tool, not specifically geocoding, so the description fails to reconcile its purpose with the parameter set.

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 gives a general outcome but doesn't specify which input represents the place. The schema includes many unrelated parameters (ref, url, feed, json, etc.) with descriptions indicating they are discarded, creating ambiguity about the tool's true function. It also doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like weather-hint or tz-asia-yerevan.

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 geo-hint versus alternative tools. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over its siblings. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL,' with no mention of how invalid URLs are handled, what the output format is, or that other schema parameters are discarded. This is a significant gap for a tool with such a sparse description.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity. The front-loading is acceptable for a simple action, but the lack of supporting detail prevents a 5.

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, yet the description is extremely minimal. It fails to specify which parameters are relevant, what the tool returns, error behavior, or any edge cases. This is entirely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no new meaning about parameters—it does not clarify that only 'url' is used, nor does it elaborate on the discarded parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage, but the description provides no added value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a clear, specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or figma-url-shape. However, it does not explicitly mention that the tool only uses the 'url' parameter, leaving some ambiguity about its scope given the schema's many unrelated parameters.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling shape-checking tools. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer context 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 carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions 'Titles discarded,' which is a minor hint but does not explain how parameters are used, whether network access occurs, or what the return value is. The schema's per-parameter notes (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') are not echoed in the description, so behavior remains opaque.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. It is concise with no filler. However, the structure is minimal and does not provide additional context that could aid the agent, such as a note on parameter relevance.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain why the parameters exist, how to invoke the tool correctly, or what the expected result format is. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without further assumptions.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has an individual description. However, the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters relate to the stated purpose of counting HN stories. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters, but the description fails to bridge the gap between them and the tool's function.

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

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

The description states a clear action: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' However, the presence of 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) with no explanation of their role creates confusion about what the tool actually does. The purpose is partially clear but not fully distinguished from the parameter set.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., domain-shape, file-path-ok). There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist (e.g., discarded inputs), or what it returns. The schema mentions 'discarded' fields, but the description itself gives no behavioral context.

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 in length, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to earn its place because it conveys almost no actionable information, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful definition.

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 required fields, no output schema, and no behavioral hints, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what inputs matter, what the tool returns, or how to interpret results, making correct invocation nearly impossible.

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 tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only vaguely references timezone names, while the schema independently documents each parameter including the 'zone' field. No additional value is contributed.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') that does not state an action verb or clarify whether the tool lists names, validates a zone, or performs some other operation. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'tz-asia-yerevan', leaving the agent to guess the tool's role.

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. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent has no basis for selecting it over the many sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it is misleading. The parameter descriptions indicate 'discarded after the shape check' and similar, suggesting a generic shape-validation tool, yet the description claims a robots.txt fetch. This internal contradiction means the agent cannot predict actual behavior. No side effects, permissions, or response details are disclosed.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, it is so under-specified that the conciseness is a detriment; there is no wasted text, but it omits essential context. Still, the length itself is appropriate for the minimal 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to explain how the parameters are used, what the 'group counts' mean, or what inputs are expected. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but the overall description adds no meaning and actively misleads. It does not explain how these parameters relate to fetching robots.txt, and the parameter descriptions themselves (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') contradict the tool's stated purpose. The description fails to compensate for the schema's disconnected parameter set.

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

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

The description states a clear action and resource ('Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only'), but it directly conflicts with the parameter set, which includes city, feed, json, zone, etc., none of which relate to robots.txt. It fails to distinguish from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch, and the stated purpose is misleading.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any sibling. No mention of prerequisites, use cases, or alternatives. The description gives no context about when a robots.txt fetch would be appropriate or how it differs from similar tools.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Key discarded,' which is vague and does not clarify what inputs are read, whether the operation is side-effect-free, or what happens with the supplied parameters. The statement 'Key discarded' is not meaningful without a defined 'key' parameter.

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

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

The description is extremely short (two sentences), but under-specification is not conciseness. It omits critical information and the structure does not front-load the most important details about what the key parameter is or how the check behaves.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot infer which input to provide, what the output format is, or what 'shape' validation entails. The mismatch between the description and the schema further degrades completeness.

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%, but the parameter descriptions are generic and disconnected from the stated purpose. For example, 'ref' is described as a Git ref name, not a Jira key, and there is no parameter that obviously corresponds to a Jira issue key. The description adds no clarification on which parameter to use or how the shape check is applied.

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 verb ('Check') and a resource ('Jira issue key shape'), but it never identifies which parameter holds the key. The schema lists 9 unrelated fields (city, feed, host, json, etc.) with no 'key' parameter, so the purpose is ambiguous. It does not distinguish from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape or github-repo-shape beyond the name.

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 siblings such as domain-shape or figma-url-shape. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess applicability.

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 mentions 'Body discarded' for a URL, but says nothing about how the other eight parameters are handled, what the output looks like, or whether any validation is performed. The description contradicts the breadth implied by the input schema.

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

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

The description is only one sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. This is not efficient conciseness; it omits critical information about a nine-parameter tool, making it an under-specification rather than a well-structured summary.

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 high parameter count and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the purpose for each input, how they interact, or what the tool returns. An agent has almost no basis to correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is individually documented, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain how parameters relate to the stated purpose (e.g., whether 'city' or 'zone' are also checked for HTTP status). The description effectively ignores most parameters, offering no semantic value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('HTTP status for a public library docs URL') but it is far too narrow and does not reflect the nine heterogeneous parameters (city, feed, json, zone, etc.). An agent cannot tell what the tool actually does across these inputs, and it fails to distinguish from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar siblings (fetch-status, browser-url-ok, normalize-url). No conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that values are discarded and does not explain how the JSON object is selected among the many parameters, what happens with non-JSON inputs, or any side effects. The behavior is 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 very short and front-loaded, which is good for conciseness, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential context about how to invoke the tool, making it incomplete 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?

With 9 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is far too terse. It does not explain the relationship between the parameters and the counting operation, the expected output format, or edge cases. An agent would struggle to use 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the tool description does not map its 'JSON object' concept to any specific parameter (e.g., 'json'). The parameter descriptions are generic and inconsistent with the stated purpose (e.g., 'json' says 'validate' instead of 'count'), so the description adds little meaning and may confuse an agent about which parameter to supply.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Count') and resource ('keys in a JSON object'), which is clear and distinguishable from siblings like validate-json. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from tools that might also operate on JSON shapes, and the large set of unrelated parameters muddies the intent 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no idea whether this is preferred over validate-json or other shape-checking tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that query and fragment are dropped, but it does not clarify that the tool likely only uses the 'url' parameter and ignores the other eight parameters, nor does it mention error handling or side effects. The minimal disclosure leaves significant behavior undocumented.

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

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

Two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and every word contributes. It is concise and well-structured.

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 provides only a minimal indication of output ('origin, host, and path') but doesn't explain the return format, how the many parameters interact (or are ignored), or edge-case behavior. For a tool with this complexity, 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 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it doesn't even specify which parameter is the URL to normalize. While the schema's 'url' description covers this, the description fails to connect its purpose to the schema, creating potential confusion. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns origin, host, and path from a URL and drops query and fragment. The verb 'Return' and resource 'URL' are specific, and the behavior is unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or domain-shape, which also operate on URLs.

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. There is no mention of when not to use it, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. The description offers no context for selecting this tool over other URL-related tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no browser is launched, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it omits what 'can be opened' actually entails (e.g., network fetch, DNS resolution, HTTP status), and the parameter list includes many fields (ref, city, feed, json, etc.) that seem unrelated to URL checking, suggesting the tool may perform additional side operations or validations that are not disclosed. This makes the behavior unclear 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 a single sentence with no waste, and the key point is front-loaded. However, for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, it is under-specified. While conciseness is valued, it comes at the cost of essential information, so it earns a middle score.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the result, or why the parameters are present. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the parameter set makes the definition seriously incomplete 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 baseline is 3. However, the parameter descriptions themselves are confusing: they mention 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint', 'JSON text to validate', etc., which are irrelevant to the stated purpose of checking a URL. The tool description adds nothing to clarify how these parameters relate to the URL check. This inconsistency reduces the effective semantics below the baseline.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' It also adds a distinguishing behavioral note ('No browser is launched'), which hints at a lightweight check. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like browser-url-ok, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. With many sibling tools (browser-url-ok, fetch-status, normalize-url), the lack of any usage context leaves the agent 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says it is a catalog, implying a read-only operation, but it does not state that it makes no network calls, that it is safe, or that it discards input. The parameter schema notes parameters are discarded, but the description itself offers no such 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 short sentence with no fluff, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it omits essential context, so while the structure is efficient, it does not fully earn its place.

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

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

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a minimal purpose and no details on how to use the parameters, what the catalog contains, or what the response looks like. This is grossly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema. However, the description adds no meaning about how these parameters relate to the catalog's output. The parameters seem unrelated to HTTP status codes, and the description does not clarify whether they are ignored or influence the result, leaving the agent 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 states that the tool provides a short catalog of common HTTP status codes, which is a clear resource. However, it lacks any detail about how the input parameters affect the catalog, and it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch. The purpose is identifiable but under-specified.

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 gives no context for selecting it over similar tools like fetch-status or validate-json, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent receives zero routing help.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says 'Prompt discarded,' implying the input is ignored, but the schema descriptions say parameters are 'discarded after shape check' or 'discarded after the call,' suggesting some validation happens. The description doesn't clarify the actual behavior—whether the tool always returns the same template or performs validation—leaving the agent uncertain about side effects or input handling.

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, which is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It has no wasted words, but it omits essential behavioral details. It earns its place as a statement of intent, though it could be improved 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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain what the three-step template looks like, whether any parameters actually affect the output, or what 'Prompt discarded' means in practice. An agent cannot confidently predict the tool's behavior or decide when to invoke it based solely on this description.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information and even misleads by saying 'Prompt discarded' while the schema shows parameters are used for shape checks. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters; the description doesn't add value but doesn't harm beyond ambiguity.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like calc-eval or timezone. However, it doesn't elaborate on the template's content or purpose, leaving some ambiguity about why it exists.

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 any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. The agent is left to infer its use case from the name and description alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the timezone functionality, but the input schema reveals that the tool accepts many other parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) that are discarded after shape checks. The description fails to disclose that these parameters are ignored, that the tool performs shape validations, or that it has no disk access. This is a significant omission, as the tool appears to have broader (or different) behavior than the description suggests.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the core functionality clearly. However, given the tool's complexity (9 parameters), the brevity might be insufficient, but the description itself is appropriately structured and to the point.

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

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

The tool has a complex input schema with many parameters, yet the description only explains the timezone aspect. It does not mention the other parameters, their purpose, or that they are discarded. An agent might be confused about why these parameters exist and whether they affect the output. The description is incomplete for the full scope of the tool, though the schema does document each parameter individually. The overall tool behavior is not fully conveyed.

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

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

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by linking 'named IANA timezone' to the 'zone' parameter, but it does not elaborate on syntax or format beyond what the schema provides. The description adds minimal value over the schema for parameter understanding, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's primary function: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. It is specific about the verb ('Current time') and resource ('named IANA timezone'), and it is distinguishable from siblings like 'utc-time' (which implies UTC) and 'tz-asia-yerevan' (a specific zone), though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The description is clear enough for the main use case.

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 that it is the appropriate choice for timezone lookups, nor does it exclude other uses. An agent would have to infer from the name and the parameter 'zone' that this is for timezone queries, but no explicit usage context or alternative routing is provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavior disclosure. It only says 'current local time' but gives no hint that the tool ignores most input parameters (as their schema descriptions suggest they are discarded). No side effects, return format, or error behavior are disclosed.

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

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

The description is a single, compact sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and lacks structure—it doesn't front-load any critical usage details, and the brevity comes at the cost of essential context.

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

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

Despite having 9 input parameters and no output schema, the description provides almost no context. It doesn't explain the purpose of the parameters, how to call the tool, or what the output looks like. For a tool with this complexity, the description 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the parameter descriptions are about unrelated concepts (Git refs, URLs, city, RSS, JSON, etc.) and do not align with a time tool. The tool description adds nothing about which parameters are relevant or how they map to the time function, so it fails to clarify the mismatch.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns the current local time for Asia/Yerevan, a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like timezone and utc-time by being zone-specific, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like timezone or utc-time. The 9 unrelated input parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) are not addressed, leaving the agent without any direction on when to invoke this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool accepts nine parameters that are effectively discarded, nor does it specify the output format (e.g., ISO string vs. Unix timestamp). This is a significant gap for a tool with an unusual parameter set.

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, but it is under-specified. It does not front-load critical information such as the ignored parameters or the return format. The brevity is not backed by substantive content, making it less helpful than it could be.

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

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

Given the tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the parameters, the exact nature of the returned timestamp, or any side effects. An agent cannot fully understand how to invoke it 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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, including notes that they are discarded after checks. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not improve on the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description states 'Current UTC timestamp,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as returning the current UTC time. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones' that also relate to time.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'timezone' or 'iana-zones.' There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or when other tools would be more 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that 'the body is discarded,' which is a useful behavioral note, but it does not mention side effects, return values, or whether other parameters are ignored. Given the schema's diverse parameters, the description does not clarify what happens with non-JSON inputs, leaving behavioral expectations ambiguous.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a behavioral note. This is appropriately sized for the minimal information provided.

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 annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of each parameter, which ones are used for JSON validation, or what the tool returns. The mismatch between the description and the schema's parameter list leaves significant gaps for an agent to resolve.

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

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

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it does not indicate which parameters are relevant for JSON validation or how they relate. The schema descriptions themselves mention 'discarded' for many fields, so the tool's description adds nothing beyond that.

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 ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and the resource (JSON body). It is specific about the tool's primary function, and the mention of discarding the body adds context. However, the schema includes nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, path, zone, query) that do not align with JSON validation, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual scope. This prevents a 5, as it does not fully distinguish from sibling shape-checking 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like domain-shape or jira-key-shape. It does not state explicit conditions or mention any sibling tools. The usage is only implied by the name and description, leaving the agent to infer that it is for JSON validation, which is insufficient for clear 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the primary function but does not disclose that most schema parameters are discarded (as hinted by their descriptions), whether the operation is read-only, or what response format to expect. The description omits critical behavioral context for a tool with such a broad schema.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundancy, achieving maximum efficiency for a simple tool.

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

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

Despite the schema documenting each parameter, the description lacks critical context for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema. It does not explain which parameters are used, how to structure a call, or what the response contains. The mismatch between the description (weather-only) and the broad schema leaves agents uncertain about how 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds nothing beyond that; it mentions only 'city' without clarifying that other parameters are irrelevant or used for validation checks. Per the rubric, the baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully documents parameters, and the description does not enhance it.

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: 'Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo.' It specifies a concrete verb ('get') and resource (temperature for a city), and distinguishes itself from siblings like geo-hint or timezone by focusing on weather data.

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. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. Given the large sibling set, an agent gets no direction on selecting this tool 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the title is discarded after the call, but does not explain the tool's multi-purpose nature, side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The description's narrow focus on Wikipedia titles contradicts the broad parameter set.

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 to the point, but it is not structured to front-load key usage details. It is concise but lacks substance, making it minimally acceptable.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, how to choose which parameter to use, or the actual scope of the tool. The mismatch between description and schema leaves an agent unable to reliably call the tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description, but the tool description does not clarify how these parameters relate to the stated purpose. The description's emphasis on Wikipedia titles conflicts with parameters like 'city' and 'feed', creating confusion rather than adding 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 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists', but the input schema includes parameters like city, feed, host, json, zone, and query that are unrelated to Wikipedia titles. This mismatch makes the actual purpose ambiguous; the tool appears to be a generic validator, but the description does not reflect that.

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 any of the sibling tools (e.g., browser-url-ok, domain-shape, calc-eval). There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or exclusions.

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