Atlantic/Bermuda clock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that task text is discarded and that each parameter is discarded after a shape or length check, which is transparent about input handling. However, it doesn't describe the return format, potential side effects, or why the parameters exist at all, leaving gaps.

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 three short sentences, front-loading the purpose, listing the returns, and adding a behavioral note. Every sentence contributes, with no filler or redundancy.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin. It lists returned items but doesn't explain the parameters' role, the return format, or the tool's overall workflow. For a tool with this complexity, it is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about how to use it effectively.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already includes its own 'discarded after' note. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a clear and specific purpose: finding the Monid pay-per-call gateway and listing the returned artifacts. It is distinct from sibling tools, which are generic utilities, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'find' and the resource 'Monid' are clear.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied as a niche lookup, but no conditions or exclusions are given. It doesn't mention when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer.

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 that no browser is launched, but does not clarify whether a network request is made, what 'opened' means (e.g., HTTP 200), whether the operation is read-only, or what happens to the various parameters (some are 'discarded' per the schema, but this is not in the description). This is insufficient for a tool with 9 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 purpose. However, given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), it is under-specified. While it is efficient in words, it omits critical context, making a 3 more appropriate than a higher score for 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains only the main action and the no-browser detail. It does not explain the purpose of the parameters, the return value, error behavior, or any prerequisites. This is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so it does not enhance what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and distinguishes itself from browser-based alternatives by noting 'No browser is launched.' However, the input schema includes nine parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.) that are not mentioned in the description, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual scope. The core purpose is clear, but the parameter mismatch detracts from full 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It only implicitly distinguishes from a browser-based tool by saying 'No browser is launched,' but does not name alternatives or specify conditions. An agent would not know whether to select this over normalize-url, fetch-status, or 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Expression discarded' but does not explain what is discarded or what the tool actually does with the parameters. There is no mention of side effects, permissions, or return values. The behavior is entirely opaque.

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

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

The description is extremely short, which is concise, but it lacks essential context. The two sentences are not informative enough to guide an agent, and the second sentence is cryptic. It is under-specified rather than appropriately 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 nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the return value, the semantics of the check, or any usage context. It is grossly incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its parameters, so the schema itself explains each field. However, the tool description adds no meaning about how these parameters relate to the stated arithmetic evaluation, and the description's purpose does not align with the parameters, leaving the agent unsure of how to fill them.

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

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

The description states 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic' which gives a vague purpose, but the input schema contains nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) with no arithmetic expression field. The description does not clarify how these parameters are used, making the tool's purpose ambiguous and potentially misleading.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., domain-shape, validate-json). It does not mention any alternative or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one useful trait ('Page content is not stored') and the schema parameter notes add 'discarded' and 'no disk access' behavior, which helps. However, for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, the overall behavior of most inputs remains opaque beyond the schema's one-line notes.

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 no waste, and the primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The behavioral disclosure is packed into the second. Excellent economy.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of the extra parameters, describe the exact return shape, or give selection criteria, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter notes (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). It does not explain how the diverse parameters relate to the claimed host/scheme/status output.

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 verb and resource ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), but the 9-parameter schema covers wildly unrelated domains (city, zone, json, feed, path, query, ref), contradicting the stated singular purpose. It also does not differentiate from URL-focused siblings such as fetch-status, normalize-url, and 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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the many overlapping siblings (fetch-status, normalize-url, browser-url-ok, web-fetch). No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection hints are given, 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'No identifiers are retained,' a privacy note, but says nothing about side effects, read-only status, external calls, or the nature of the classification. An agent cannot infer whether this is a safe read operation or performs network requests.

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

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

At two sentences, it is short but not concisely informative. It is under-specified rather than efficient, offering almost no operational detail. The privacy note is front-loaded but the core purpose remains undefined, making the brevity a liability.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what 'classified' means, what the output looks like, how the parameters are used, or any constraints. An agent has almost no information 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% with each of the 9 parameters having a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description itself is silent on how parameters relate to the classification.

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' which identifies a verb and a general resource, but 'request' and 'classified' are undefined. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'validate-json' or 'file-path-ok' which are also classification/validation tools. The name 'compatibility' hints at a purpose but the description fails to specify what compatibility is checked.

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 of the 27 siblings. No mention of alternatives, exclusions, or specific conditions. The description is a single vague sentence with no context for 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that WHOIS/ownership data is not fetched, which is a positive note. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, what the return value looks like, or how it handles the other input parameters. The behavioral information is minimal and insufficient 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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and a key limitation. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Efficiency is optimal.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description only addresses hostname splitting. It does not explain why the tool accepts a city, feed, JSON, path, zone, or query, nor does it describe expected output or error behavior. This is a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with the right parameters and interpret results.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage, meaning every parameter is described in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Since the schema already documents all parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat that but also does not add anything extra.

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 and resource: 'Split a hostname into labels'. It also distinguishes from WHOIS/ownership data, which helps differentiate from tools that might provide that. However, the input schema includes many unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query), so the description does not explain why those exist or how they relate to the core function, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual scope.

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

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

The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies a condition for use—when you only need label splitting and not ownership info. But it does not explicitly name any sibling tools (e.g., github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape) or state when to choose this over them. It provides a hint but not clear exclusion criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the method (HEAD) and minimal output, but does not explain the presence of nine seemingly unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, etc.) or how they interact with the URL. This ambiguity could mislead an agent into thinking all parameters are relevant, whereas the description implies only 'url' matters.

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 maximally concise while conveying the essential 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?

For a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not define what 'status only' returns (HTTP status code, body, etc.), does not explain the purpose of the extraneous parameters, and omits error behavior or prerequisites. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool beyond a simple HEAD request.

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 cryptic (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') and do not clarify their role relative to the stated purpose. The tool description adds no parameter guidance, so it fails to help the agent understand which of the nine optional parameters to populate for a typical URL status check.

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 (HEAD), resource (public URL), and output (status only), making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like browser-url-ok or playwright-url-ok, which also check URL status, leaving the agent to infer distinctions.

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 over alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent without routing criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only reveals that the path is discarded; it doesn't disclose read-only behavior, return format, error handling, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that parses external URLs.

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

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

The description is extremely short, which is good for conciseness, but it sacrifices necessary content. It's under-specified rather than appropriately concise, with only two brief clauses.

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 and no annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, usage context, or how to invoke it correctly, leaving an agent without essential information.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% so parameters are documented, but the description doesn't clarify which parameter is the Figma URL or how the other 8 parameters relate to Figma parsing. The description's focus on Figma conflicts with the broad parameter set (city, feed, json, zone, etc.), making it unclear 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?

States a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), and notes the path is discarded. However, it doesn't specify the outcome (validation, normalization, etc.) or explicitly differentiate from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape tools, nor any conditions or exclusions. An agent has no basis to select this tool over alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose 'No disk access,' which is a useful safety trait, but it fails to disclose that most other parameters are validated or discarded after a shape check. The description gives no indication that the tool accepts URLs, JSON, timezones, or search text, making the actual behavior opaque and inconsistent with the 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 sentence, which is concise in length but not in substance. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, it is severely under-specified. The brevity does not serve the agent because it omits critical scope information and leaves the other parameters unexplained.

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, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It covers only one parameter and provides no context on how the other parameters behave, what the return value looks like, or how this tool relates to its many siblings. An agent cannot safely call this tool for any input other than a path without risking misinterpretation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description. However, the tool description adds no meaning beyond the path parameter (and even repeats 'no disk access' already in the schema). It ignores the other 8 parameters entirely, creating a mismatch between the description and the actual parameter set. The description fails to compensate for the schema's breadth.

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

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

The description states a specific action (check path safety) and resource (path), and even notes no disk access. However, it only addresses the path parameter while the input schema exposes 8 other unrelated parameters (url, city, feed, json, zone, etc.), implying a broader multi-type validator. The purpose is clear for path but incomplete and potentially misleading about the tool's actual scope.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like browser-url-ok or domain-shape. There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema 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, and the description discloses no behavioral traits: whether it is read-only, what it does with inputs (several schema descriptions mention 'discarded'), any rate limits, or what the response format is. The description carries the full burden and fails to meet it.

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 efficient in length but critically under-specified. It omits essential usage information, so it is not conciseness but under-specification.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the tool is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what input to provide, what the expected output looks like, or any constraints. The description offers almost no operational context.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no value in mapping parameters to the geo-hint functionality. The schema descriptions themselves are cryptic (e.g., 'ref' is a Git ref discarded after a shape check) and the tool description does not clarify which parameter(s) identify the place or how they relate to latitude/longitude.

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

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

The description states the tool returns latitude and longitude via Open-Meteo, but it does not explain how the 'place' is specified, which of the 9 parameters are relevant, or how it differs from sibling tools like weather-hint or timezone. It is more of a vague outcome statement than a clear operational purpose.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools, leaving the agent without any decision support.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Parse owner and repo,' but does not explain what happens to other inputs (many are marked 'discarded' in the schema), what the output format is, or whether validation is performed. The description is misleading in its narrowness, as the schema implies a more general shape-checking capability.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no waste. However, given the tool has nine parameters and a complex schema, the brevity leaves critical information out. It is efficient but under-specified, so it neither earns a high score for completeness nor a low score for verbosity.

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

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

The tool is complex (9 parameters, no output schema) and the description covers only a fraction of its behavior. It does not explain the role of the other parameters, the expected output, or any error conditions. An agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke the tool for anything other than a simple GitHub URL parse.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; it does not connect any of the nine parameters to the parse action. However, it does not actively mislead, and the schema already provides descriptions for each parameter, albeit generic ones that do not align with the stated 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 a specific action ('Parse owner and repo') and resource ('GitHub URL'), which is clear. However, it fails to mention the other eight parameters in the schema, making the tool's actual scope ambiguous. It also does not differentiate it from sibling shape tools like 'domain-shape' or 'figma-url-shape'.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or contexts where parsing a GitHub URL is preferred, nor does it indicate exclusions (e.g., other URL shapes). An agent has no basis for choosing 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 of disclosing behavior. It only states that it counts stories and discards titles, but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the input parameters. The schema descriptions indicate that most inputs are 'discarded after the shape check', which contradicts the described purpose of counting HN stories, creating a behavioral inconsistency that the description does not resolve.

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

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

The description is extremely brief (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It lacks necessary structure such as usage context, parameter explanation, or output expectations. The brevity does not aid clarity; it omits critical information an agent needs.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine which inputs are relevant, what the output format is, or how the tool behaves. The description fails to provide any context about the tool's integration with HN or how 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic and unrelated to the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the schema itself fails to explain how these parameters support counting front-page stories. The description does not compensate for the low relevance of the schema information.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Count current Hacker News front-page stories'), but it is terse and fails to explain the role of the 9 input parameters or distinguish this tool from siblings like 'fetch-status' or 'web-fetch' that also interact with web content. The phrase 'Titles discarded' adds confusion rather than clarity, and there is no mention of what the tool actually does with the provided inputs.

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 sibling tools. It simply states the action without context, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not state what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, what side effects occur (e.g., discarding parameters), or how it processes the inputs. The parameter descriptions in the schema mention 'discarded after the shape check' and 'no disk access', but the tool description itself is silent on behavior, leaving the agent with no idea what invoking this tool actually does.

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 noun phrase, not a well-formed sentence with an action. It is extremely under-specified and fails to convey the tool's purpose or usage. While conciseness is valued, this is not a matter of trimming excess—it is a complete absence of essential content, making the structure inadequate.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, zero required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool does and how to invoke it. It does neither. The mismatch between the timezone-focused description and the diverse parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) creates confusion. The description is grossly incomplete for an agent 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description that includes details like 'discarded after the shape check' and 'no disk access'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the baseline of 3 applies; the description neither enhances nor contradicts 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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' gives a hint that the tool deals with timezone names, but it lacks a clear verb or action (e.g., 'list', 'validate', 'resolve'). It does not explain what the tool does with its 9 parameters, many of which (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, query) are unrelated to timezones. This is ambiguous and does not distinguish it from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine if this is the right tool for a given task, especially given the large set of sibling tools covering diverse functions.

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, but it only states the action and output. It fails to mention that the tool makes a network request, that most of the 9 input parameters are discarded (per their schema descriptions), or how failures are handled. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the parameter list is not addressed, leaving an agent unaware of the actual runtime behavior.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and outcome. While it is minimal, it is not verbose and earns credit for conciseness. It could have added context, but that is a completeness issue rather than a structure issue.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'group counts' means, what the output format is, how parameters like 'ref' or 'city' relate to robots.txt, or why they are discarded. An agent cannot infer how to invoke the tool correctly or what to expect in return.

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 itself adds no parameter-specific information. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema covers all parameters; the description does not need to repeat them, and it does not introduce any new 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 a clear verb ('Fetch') and resource ('public robots.txt') with a specific outcome ('return group counts only'). It is concise and unambiguous about the core action. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like web-fetch or fetch-status, and the input schema's many unrelated parameters (ref, city, json, etc.) create confusion about the tool's actual scope, so it loses a point.

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 mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would select this tool over siblings such as fetch-status or web-fetch. An agent would have no basis for choosing it beyond the tool name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the key is discarded (implying read-only), but does not state what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, status, or validation result) or any side effects. The behavior of 'check' is left 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 short, two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, but that is captured under other dimensions.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain what constitutes a valid Jira key, what the tool returns, or how to use the parameters. An agent cannot reliably 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?

Although the schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, the description itself adds no parameter semantics. The tool is about Jira keys, but the parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) are unrelated, and the description does not indicate which parameter holds the Jira key or how they relate to the purpose. This is a critical gap for an agent.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('Jira issue key shape'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling shape-check tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. It also notes the key is discarded, which clarifies scope.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for validating Jira keys specifically, nor does it exclude other use cases. An agent must infer applicability from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the body is discarded, implying a status-only response, but fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, any authentication requirements, or error behavior. The mention of 'discarded after the call' for many parameters suggests no persistent state, but this is not explicitly summarized for the tool as a whole.

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 that clearly states the core action and a key behavioral trait. There is no fluff or repetition. However, it omits any mention of the 9 parameters, which is a structural gap given their diversity; still, the sentence itself is concise 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?

The tool has 9 optional parameters and no required ones, making parameter selection ambiguous. The description does not explain how the parameters relate to the stated purpose (e.g., that 'url' is the primary input), nor does it specify the return format beyond 'HTTP status'. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with the correct parameter.

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 every parameter has a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level context beyond what the schema already provides, nor does it clarify which parameter (likely 'url') is relevant to the stated purpose. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents each field, but the description fails to map the broad parameter list to the tool's narrow stated 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 specific action ('HTTP status for a public library docs URL') and a behavioral detail ('Body discarded'). However, the input schema contains 9 diverse parameters (city, zone, json, feed, etc.) unrelated to a docs URL, creating ambiguity about what the tool actually operates on. It doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which also handle URL status checks.

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. Siblings such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, and web-fetch all overlap with URL status checks, but the description never mentions them or states selection criteria. The agent is left to infer usage from the narrow description, which conflicts with the broad parameter set.

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 full behavioral disclosure. It only states that values are discarded, which is a minor trait. It does not mention error handling, side effects, permissions, or what happens with invalid input. For a tool with no annotations and a complex parameter set, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded. However, given the parameter complexity, the brevity may be a drawback, but conciseness itself is good. It earns a 4 for being succinct 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?

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description explains only the core action without any guidance on how the parameters are used or what the return value looks like. It does not clarify which parameter is the JSON object or why the other parameters exist. This is severely 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 every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain how the diverse parameters relate to the stated purpose of counting keys. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra value, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a clear action and target ('Count keys in a JSON object') and adds the behavioral note 'Values discarded.' However, the tool name 'memory-key-count' and the diverse parameter list (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) create confusion about what the tool actually does, and the description does not differentiate it from siblings like validate-json or web-fetch. The core purpose is understandable but the parameter mismatch undermines 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no idea whether this tool is appropriate for counting keys in a JSON payload or for some other operation involving the listed parameters.

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 disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is a behavioral trait. However, it omits crucial details such as the output format (e.g., JSON object), error handling for invalid URLs, whether the URL is validated, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence, which is structurally efficient. However, it is too terse; it provides only the core action without any supporting detail. While it is not bloated, it sacrifices substance for brevity, 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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value format, which parameters are relevant, how to handle missing inputs, or when to use the tool. An agent would be unable to invoke this tool correctly with confidence.

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 the parameters. It only mentions 'URL' implicitly, but the schema includes 9 optional parameters like 'city', 'feed', 'ref', etc., many of which seem unrelated to URL normalization. The description fails to explain how these parameters interact with the tool's stated purpose, 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 a clear action: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and specifies that query and fragment are dropped. This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'domain-shape' or 'figma-url-shape' that may also deal with URL components, so it misses the opportunity to disambiguate.

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. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred over siblings such as 'browser-url-ok' or 'web-fetch'. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No browser is launched' but does not explain what the check actually does (network request? format validation?), what the return value is, or side effects. The schema hints at 'shape checks' and 'discarded after' notes, but these are not surfaced in the description.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence), but conciseness should mean appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. With 9 parameters and no annotations, this is under-specification, not efficient brevity. It omits essential information about the tool's actual scope and behavior.

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 completely inadequate for a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. An agent has no idea what the tool does beyond a vague URL check, cannot map the parameters to behavior, and lacks any return format. It is far from complete.

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

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

The description mentions no parameters. While the schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), the description adds no value in linking them to the tool's purpose. The mismatch between the URL-focused description and the diverse parameter list actually confuses rather than clarifies parameter usage.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened'), but the schema reveals nine parameters covering city, JSON, timezone, file paths, etc., which contradicts the narrow URL-only focus. The purpose is ambiguous and potentially misleading; it does not clearly differentiate from siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only behavioral hint, 'No browser is launched,' is buried in the description and does not explain selection criteria. Sibling tools such as browser-url-ok or fetch-status are not mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the query is discarded (a non-destructive trait), but this is redundant with the schema descriptions for each parameter, which already state similar discarding behavior. The description does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., an integer length) or whether any other side effects occur, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool that accepts nine parameters.

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

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

The description is concise: two short sentences that front-load the action. It contains no filler or repetition. It is appropriately minimal for the stated purpose, though it may be too terse given the complexity of the schema.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does with the other parameters, what output format to expect, or how it fits into the broader toolset. The minimal description leaves substantial gaps that an agent needs to make a correct call.

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 all nine parameters are already documented with their own descriptions, including the discarding behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. It specifically mentions 'search query,' which maps to the 'query' parameter, but does not explain the purpose of the other eight parameters or their relation to the tool's core function. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: count characters in a search query. It is specific enough to identify the core action, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also count lengths (e.g., memory-key-count, hn-front-count). The tool name itself is unambiguous, and the description reinforces it without being a tautology.

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 choosing it over sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the name and minimal description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses no behavioral traits—no mention of side effects, return format, or how parameters affect output. The single sentence provides no behavioral transparency beyond the label 'catalog'.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. It is concise but not structured to convey necessary information.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the parameters do, what the tool returns, or any behavioral context. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool 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 is described in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already handles it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 provides a short catalog of common HTTP status codes, which is a clear purpose. However, it does not explain how the nine parameters relate to this purpose, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or web-fetch. The purpose is clear but incomplete.

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 lacks any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no idea whether to choose this over sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Prompt discarded' but does not explain that all parameters are ignored or that the tool returns a fixed template. The parameter descriptions in the schema hint at discarding, but the tool description itself is not transparent about side effects.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical context about the template and parameters, making it under-specified rather than efficiently packed with information.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, but the description doesn't explain why the parameters exist, what the template looks like, or when to use the tool. This is inadequate 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 tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it doesn't clarify the relationship between the parameters and the returned template.

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

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

The description states a specific action (return a three-step thinking template), but the resource is vague and the phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds confusion about the tool's actual function. It doesn't distinguish from siblings, though the tool appears unique in its purpose.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or alternative tools, 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, the description carries full burden. It only states the action and resource but does not disclose whether it returns a formatted string, whether it validates the zone, or if any side effects exist (e.g., network calls). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal 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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words, though it is so brief that it sacrifices useful 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?

The tool has nine parameters, only one of which (zone) is relevant, and no output schema. The description does not clarify that the other parameters are irrelevant or ignored, nor does it specify the return format. For a simple tool this is borderline, but the presence of many extraneous parameters makes the lack of clarification a notable 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented individually. The description adds the clarification 'named' (implying a name like 'America/New_York' rather than an offset), but it does not explicitly point to the 'zone' parameter among the nine. This is a marginal addition over 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?

States a specific action ('Current time') and resource ('named IANA timezone'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like utc-time (which likely returns UTC) and iana-zones (which lists zones). The wording is unambiguous but lacks detail on the output format.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. The description implies it is for a specific zone but does not explicitly state exclusions or contexts, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only states the output. It does not explain what happens with the parameters (e.g., that they are discarded after shape checks) or any side effects.

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

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

The description is extremely terse—a single phrase. It is concise but not structured to aid the agent; it omits essential context about the parameters and usage.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no explanation of parameter roles, expected behavior, or return format, 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no parameter semantics and fails to explain why parameters like 'city' or 'json' are relevant to a UTC timestamp 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 states a clear action and resource ('Current UTC timestamp'), but it is ambiguous how the nine input parameters relate to that purpose. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the body is discarded but fails to specify the return value (e.g., boolean, success/failure) or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no other 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 concise, two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes a behavioral note. Slightly more detail on parameters would improve it without compromising 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 has 9 parameters, all optional, and no output schema. The description only addresses a 'body' without explaining what the other 8 parameters do or how they relate to the validation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond mentioning a generic 'body' without mapping it to a specific parameter. It meets the baseline but provides no added value over 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 clearly states the tool checks whether a body is valid JSON, using a specific verb and resource. However, 'body' is ambiguous—it doesn't explicitly reference the 'json' parameter, and the description doesn't differentiate from siblings, though no sibling appears to overlap directly.

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 only states what it does, with no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer 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 must disclose behavior. It mentions external API use (Open-Meteo) but fails to clarify that only the 'city' parameter is used, that other schema parameters are ignored, or that the call is read-only. The schema's many unrelated parameters create ambiguity that the description does not resolve.

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 without fluff. However, it is so brief that it omits critical usage and behavioral context, though conciseness itself is appropriate.

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

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

With nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the response format, what happens when non-city parameters are provided, or why those parameters exist. This is a significant gap for a tool that appears to have a shared schema.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema; thus 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 clearly states the tool retrieves current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo, specifying a verb, resource, and provider. It distinguishes from siblings like geo-hint or timezone, but does not explicitly contrast with other hint 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does without context on selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the body is discarded and that the URL must be public, implying no authentication. However, it does not mention error handling, redirects, timeouts, or rate limits, which are significant for a fetch tool.

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

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

The description is two concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core behavior and adds the key detail about body discarding, making it efficiently 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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the output format, the role of each parameter, or how the tool handles non-URL inputs. The mismatch between the stated URL-only purpose and the many unrelated parameters makes it incomplete for an agent to invoke 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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema, covering 100% of them, so the schema already documents each parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail and does not clarify which parameter is the primary input or how the unrelated parameters (e.g., city, zone) relate to the stated URL 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 clearly states the tool returns HTTP status and content type for a public URL, which is a specific action on a resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use.

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 the title is 'discarded after the call' but does not state what the check returns, whether it is read-only, any permissions needed, or error behavior. The single behavioral note is insufficient.

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

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

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, and the sentence about discarding the title adds little clarity. It is concise but not informative enough.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to pass the title, what the expected response is, or how the parameters relate to the check. The agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, each parameter's description is generic and unrelated to Wikipedia titles (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no meaning about which parameter corresponds to the title, and the schema itself suggests a different purpose, so the parameter semantics are misleading.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists'), but the input schema contains no 'title' parameter and instead lists nine unrelated generic fields (ref, url, city, etc.). This mismatch makes it impossible for an agent to know how to provide the title, so the purpose is not actionable.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., domain-shape, browser-url-ok). The description does not mention any conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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