Australia/Adelaide clock

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a read-only safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it states the outputs (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops) and notes that 'Task text discarded,' which informs the agent that any conversational payload is ignored. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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

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

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero redundant wording. The primary purpose comes first, followed by the return content and a notable behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place.

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

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

For a tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return contents, mentions the discarded task text, and relies on annotations for safety. It could clarify what 'Monid' is or what 'remote MCP hops' precisely entails, but the current description gives an agent enough 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 the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to. This meets the baseline for a fully schema-covered 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid).' It further specifies what is returned (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops), making the tool's function unmistakable. None of the sibling tools cover pay-per-call gateways, so it is clearly differentiated.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need to locate a public Monid gateway. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over other tools or any stated exclusions. The sibling set is broad, so an agent must infer appropriateness from the resource name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals one behavior (no browser launch) but fails to clarify whether the tool makes a network request, performs a purely local shape check, or returns a boolean vs. a detailed result. The schema's 'discarded after the shape check' hints at a shape-validation behavior, but the description omits this crucial distinction.

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 conveys its primary action efficiently with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it sacrifices detail needed for the tool's apparent parameter complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and seven parameters, this description is incomplete. It does not define what 'can be opened' means (network reachability vs. syntactic validity), what the return value is, or how the non-URL parameters are handled. An agent would not know how to interpret results or distinguish this from related fetch/check tools.

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

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

The input schema provides descriptions for all seven parameters, so schema coverage is complete. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it references only 'a URL' while the schema includes many unrelated inputs, and it does not explain how or why those other parameters are discarded.

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 URL can be opened,' and adds 'No browser is launched' to differentiate it from browser-launching siblings like playwright-url-ok. However, it only mentions URLs while the input schema exposes many non-URL parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path), leaving the tool's actual scope ambiguous.

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

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

The phrase 'No browser is launched' implies this tool is appropriate when a lightweight check without browser overhead is desired, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Usage context is only implied, not spelled out.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Expression discarded' is the only behavioral disclosure, and it is under-specified—it does not say whether the result is returned, what side effects occur, or what 'discarded' means operationally. Most behavioral expectations are left to inference.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the intended action. However, the second sentence 'Expression discarded' is vague and does not clearly earn its place, so the structure is acceptable but not exemplary.

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

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain inputs, behavior, and return value, but it explains none of them. The seven unrelated input parameters and the claimed arithmetic behavior are never reconciled. This definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool safely.

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 gives each of the seven parameters its own description, so baseline coverage is high, but the tool description adds no mapping to these parameters. Worse, it implies an absent 'expression' parameter, making the schema harder to use rather than clarifying it. The description therefore subtracts value from the parameter semantics.

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

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

The description claims the tool evaluates a+b arithmetic, which is a specific purpose, but the input schema contains no expression parameter—only ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path. The phrase 'Expression discarded' makes the intent even more ambiguous, so an agent cannot reliably know what this tool operates on. This is misleading rather than clarifying.

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

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

No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over the many sibling validators and checkers, and no exclusions or alternatives are named. The arithmetic phrase implies a use case, but it is not supported by the schema. An agent has no basis for routing a request to calc-eval.

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 of disclosing behavior. It adds the useful privacy guarantee that page content is not stored, and it specifies the return fields. However, it does not mention network side effects, limitations, or that many schema parameters are discarded, leaving partial 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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The main output is front-loaded, and the privacy note is a meaningful second sentence.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings. The description explains only the URL use case and leaves ambiguity about whether city, feed, json, path, zone, and query are alternatives, ignored, or combined. This is incomplete for safe selection and 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 description itself only mentions URL and adds no semantic detail about the other eight parameters, but the schema already documents each parameter adequately.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this from overlapping siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, so it misses the top score.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it returns, not when an agent should choose it over fetch-status, normalize-url, or other URL-related 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 present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one meaningful behavioral trait: "No identifiers are retained," which signals statelessness/privacy. However, it does not state whether the tool performs network access, has side effects, or returns different behavior depending on the input category.

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 action and privacy note are front-loaded. It loses a point because the first sentence is too vague to be genuinely informative.

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 multi-parameter classification tool with no output schema, yet the description says nothing about what classifications exist, what the return value looks like, or how the different optional inputs affect behavior. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool and interpret its result 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all seven parameters, so the schema carries the heavy lifting. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3 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 says only "Show how this request is classified," which is vague and does not specify what kind of classification is performed, what inputs it operates on, or what output the agent should expect. It is not a tautology, but it fails to clearly distinguish this tool from sibling classifiers like domain-shape, validate-json, or file-path-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 alternatives such as validate-json, domain-shape, or normalize-url. The description implies a classification use case but provides no explicit context, exclusions, or 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the limitation 'without WHOIS or ownership data', which is helpful, but it does not explain how other schema parameters (ref, url, city, feed, json, path) relate to the tool's behavior, nor what the output format is. This is a significant gap given the tool's multi-parameter 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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and a key limitation. However, the brevity contributes to the lack of context around the additional schema parameters, preventing 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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain how the parameters are used, which are required, what the tool returns, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. This is inadequate for correct invocation in most scenarios.

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

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

The schema already provides descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some clarity for the 'host' parameter by indicating it is the hostname to split, but it does not clarify the purpose of the other six parameters, which leaves their semantics ambiguous in the context of this tool.

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

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

The description states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Split a hostname into labels'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly scoping to hostnames and clarifying that it does not deal with WHOIS or ownership data. This is enough for an agent to know when this tool is the intended one.

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 alternatives like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The only hint is the implied use case from the description itself, but there is no when-not statement or mention of 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 burden. It discloses the HTTP method and the output style, but does not mention redirects, timeouts, errors, or whether the response body is fully discarded. This is partially transparent but 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 concise sentence. Parameter descriptions are also short. The main issue is the large number of optional parameters, but the description itself is efficient.

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

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

There is no output schema, no error semantics, and the input schema appears mismatched with the described purpose. An agent would likely struggle to know which parameters are actually relevant or what the 'status' return value looks like.

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

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

Although every parameter has a description, most are unrelated to the stated purpose (e.g., ref, city, feed, zone, query). The url parameter's description says 'normalize or cite' rather than 'check status', creating confusion about how the parameters relate to 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 clearly states the action (HEAD), the resource (a public URL), and the output (status only), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch content or normalize URLs. However, it could more explicitly contrast with alternatives like browser-url-ok or web-fetch.

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

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

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling URL/status tools. The intended use is implied by 'HEAD a public URL and return status only', but alternatives and limiting conditions 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only offers 'Path discarded', which is ambiguous—it could mean ignoring the URL path or discarding the 'path' parameter. It doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or how invalid URLs are handled, leaving major behavioral 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. The two short statements are easy to scan. It sacrifices informative context for brevity, so it does not reach a perfect 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 output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only says to parse a Figma URL and discard the path. It doesn't mention what the tool returns, which parameter to use, or why the unrelated parameters exist. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool, especially given the large sibling list.

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 slight meaning by implying the 'url' parameter should be a Figma file URL rather than the generic 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'. However, it doesn't clarify the role of the other eight parameters, and 'Path discarded' creates possible confusion with the 'path' parameter.

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') and resource ('a Figma file URL'), which distinguishes it from generic URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The added 'Path discarded' hints at scoping behavior. However, it does not explain what the parse result is or explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it falls 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any reference to alternatives such as other *-shape tools or URL validators. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is for Figma URL shape checking. No explicit selection criteria are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly discloses that no disk access occurs, which implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation. However, it leaves 'safe' undefined and does not state the return value, so the transparency is incomplete.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with the main action front-loaded. 'No disk access' adds meaningful information without wasted words. It is concise, though slightly too sparse to be excellent for a tool with this schema complexity.

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 a 9-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It does not clarify what 'safe' means, what the tool returns, or how it relates to sibling validators such as validate-json and wiki-title-ok, making it insufficient for confident tool selection.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the 9 parameters having its own description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 action and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' 'No disk access' further clarifies that this is a validation-only operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling shape-check tools like browser-url-ok or wiki-title-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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. 'No disk access' is a contextual hint, but the description does not help an agent choose between this and the many sibling validation 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 itself must disclose behavioral traits. It only names Open-Meteo as the data source, which implies an external network call, but it does not explain input expectations, output format, failure modes, rate limits, or which schema parameters are ignored or required.

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, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It is a noun phrase lacking both a clear operation and the minimal structural context needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, this single-sentence description is far from complete. It does not state what the response looks like, how to supply the place, or what happens when the Open-Meteo lookup fails. The tool's actual invocation path is left ambiguous.

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

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

The input schema has high individual parameter descriptions, but the tool description does not clarify which parameter corresponds to the 'place' for geocoding. The schema includes seven unrelated-looking fields, and nothing in the description maps the purpose to a specific parameter such as 'city', leaving an agent unable to confidently construct a valid call.

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 latitude and longitude for a place, sourced via Open-Meteo. This is specific enough to distinguish it from weather-hint (weather data) and timezone/utc-time. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', but the resource and scope 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as weather-hint or timezone. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions stated. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'for a place via Open-Meteo.'

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

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

There are no annotations to carry the safety/behavior burden, yet the description only says 'parse' and does not disclose that extra schema fields are discarded, whether it validates/normalizes, or what happens on invalid input. For a shape-checking tool this leaves important behavioral traits implicit.

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 sentence with no filler: the verb and object are front-loaded and the entire description is appropriately sized for a simple parse operation. Every word earns its place.

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

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified: it leaves the return shape and validation behavior unstated, and it does not explain why the schema contains nine unrelated optional parameters. An agent navigating the sibling tools would need more guidance.

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 applies; the description adds little beyond naming 'GitHub URL', which maps to the url parameter. It does not compensate for the fact that eight other parameters are semantically unrelated to 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') and a specific resource ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool extracts. This is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like domain-shape, figma-url-shape, and jira-key-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 implies use when a GitHub URL needs owner/repo extraction, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from related shape tools or state when not to use it. The intended context is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool counts current stories and that titles are discarded, but it does not state the return format, network dependency, or failure 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 very short and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first. However, 'Titles discarded' is terse and somewhat cryptic; it could be clearer as 'Returns only the count, not titles.'

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 optional parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain which parameters matter or whether inputs are ignored entirely. An agent is left guessing whether 'feed' is an override and what the response shape looks like.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general counting behavior, and it does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters, if any, are actually relevant.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Count'), a specific resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), and the output scope ('Titles discarded'). This is enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and distinguish it from unrelated sibling utilities.

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 'current' qualifier implies the tool is for live front-page counts rather than historical data, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The description does not explain when this tool should be preferred over sibling tools because none are directly comparable.

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, yet it only says the tool is about timezone names for clock calls. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or how the seven input parameters affect the result; schema comments about values being 'discarded' suggest behavior not covered by 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 a single, directly-stated sentence with no filler or redundancy. While it is efficient, it is arguably too terse to fully support correct invocation.

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

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

A tool with seven unrelated-looking parameters and no output schema or annotations needs more than one sentence to be invoked correctly. The description does not explain whether parameters are optional, which are required, what the return value is, or why timezone names relate to inputs like ref, json, and path.

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

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

All seven parameters already include individual schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no meaning about how these parameters relate to IANA timezone names, and the schema descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check' make the invocation semantics confusing rather than clarifying.

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

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

The description names the resource (common IANA timezone names) and its intended context (clock calls), so an agent can reason that this likely provides timezone identifiers for time-related tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists' and does not directly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as timezone or utc-time beyond the word 'names'.

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

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to alternative tools such as timezone or utc-time. The phrase 'for clock calls' implies a narrow use case but does not tell an agent when to select this tool over its siblings.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a public read and that only group counts are returned, not the full robots.txt body. However, it does not mention failure behavior, handling of missing robots.txt, or any network/site restrictions.

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

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

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately terse, though it is arguably under-specified for the richness of the input schema; that issue is better captured by contextual completeness.

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 complex ten-parameter input schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is not enough. It does not indicate which parameters are required or ignored, how 'group counts' are computed, or what happens on a failed fetch, leaving an agent with significant ambiguity.

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

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

All ten parameters already have individual descriptions in the input schema, so schema coverage is high. The tool description itself adds nothing about how parameters map to fetching robots.txt; it relies entirely on the schema for parameter meaning, which is the baseline case.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a concrete resource ('public robots.txt'), and a precise output ('return group counts only'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like web-fetch, fetch-status, or 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 implies use when a caller needs robots.txt group counts, but it does not state when to prefer this over alternatives, when not to use it, or any exclusions. The 'public' qualifier hints at no-auth usage, but no explicit guidance 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the input key is discarded, which is useful privacy context, but does not disclose whether the result is a boolean, normalized key, or error, nor behavior on malformed input.

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 key action is front-loaded. 'Key discarded.' is slightly cryptic but still concise and informative about side-effect 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?

For a validation tool with no output schema, the description should state what the caller receives (e.g., a boolean or pass/fail status) and how to interpret the check. The description also does not clarify which of the many schema properties is relevant, leaving the agent with an unusually broad, ambiguous input 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 effectively 100% and the relevant 'jira' parameter is described as 'Jira issue key e.g. PROJ-123', so the baseline is met. The tool description adds no parameter information; the unrelated schema fields create some ambiguity about which input to supply, but the schema and name make the intended parameter inferable.

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

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

The description names a specific verb and object: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from sibling shape-checkers by domain (Jira key). It lacks an explicit statement of what result is returned, which keeps it short of 5.

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

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

No guidance is given for when to call this tool instead of an alternative. There are no conditions, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools such as github-repo-shape or wiki-title-ok; usage is only implied by 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 behavioral burden. It does add one useful trait: the body is discarded. But it does not disclose whether a network request is made, whether redirects are followed, whether authentication is needed, or any failure behavior, leaving important operational details unspecified.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. 'Body discarded' is a meaningful constraint that earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is 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?

Given nine optional parameters, no required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-line description is insufficient. It does not tell the agent which parameter to pass or what the returned status representation looks like, so correct invocation is not fully supported.

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 only that the URL is a public library docs URL, but it does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters should actually be supplied, leaving the invocation ambiguous despite the schema's per-parameter text.

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 HTTP status for a public library docs URL and explicitly notes the body is discarded. This distinguishes it from body-returning fetch tools and from pure URL-shape checkers, even though no sibling is named.

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

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

The description implies usage: use this when only the HTTP status of a docs URL is needed and the body is irrelevant. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, such as 'use web-fetch when you need the page content.'

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 behavioral disclosure burden. 'Values discarded' is a genuinely useful behavioral detail, but the description does not clarify whether nested keys are counted, what output format is returned, or how invalid inputs are handled.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though slightly terse given the complexity and ambiguity of the nine-parameter schema.

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

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

The description is incomplete for safe invocation: it never explains that the 'JSON object' is the set of provided request properties, nor which parameter maps to the object to count. The schema contains many unrelated string parameters, and the `json` parameter's description points toward validation, not key counting, leaving significant ambiguity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The main description adds no per-parameter meaning; 'Values discarded' applies globally but does not resolve which parameter should contain the JSON object. The 'json' parameter's schema description says 'validate', which is somewhat inconsistent with the tool's counting 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 gives a specific action and resource: count keys in a JSON object, and the second sentence clarifies that values are ignored. This clearly separates the tool from validation-focused siblings like validate-json, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or define 'keys' as top-level vs nested.

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

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

Usage is implied by the description: use this when you need to count keys in a JSON object. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, and it does not tell the agent how to provide the JSON object given the schema's nine optional string 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?

The description discloses the key behavioral trait: query and fragment are discarded. With no annotations provided, it does not cover validation, error behavior, side effects, or edge cases, but the core transform is transparent enough for a simple normalization operation.

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 first states the output, the second states a critical limitation. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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

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

For a simple transform, the description covers the returned components and dropped parts. But with no output schema and no annotations, it could be more explicit about the return shape, URL validity requirements, and which parameter to use, especially given the noisy seven-parameter schema.

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

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

The input schema has seven parameters, yet the description never explicitly identifies 'url' as the operative input. The schema's descriptions cover each parameter individually, but the clutter of unrelated discarded parameters and the presence of 'host' and 'path' as both outputs and schema fields creates real invocation 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 names a specific operation: return origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly states that query and fragment are dropped. This makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like web-fetch or playwright-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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this tool is appropriate when it needs origin, host, and path without query/fragment. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternative 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 must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only reveals that no browser is launched, but it does not explain whether the check makes network requests, what side effects might occur, what the return value is, or how the many 'discarded' parameters behave.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded, with no filler words. The two sentences both earn their place: the main purpose and the key 'no browser' caveat. However, the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's nine-parameter 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 heterogeneous optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'can be opened' means, how the other parameters relate to the check, or what an agent should expect as a result.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, meeting the baseline but not compensating for the apparent mismatch between the URL-focused description and the broad set of unrelated parameters such as city, json, and zone.

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

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

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened', which is more informative than a mere label. The qualifier 'No browser is launched' adds a useful distinguishing detail, though it does not explicitly differentiate the tool 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or web-fetch. The statement does not mention conditions, exclusions, or preferred use cases, leaving the agent to 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?

The description explicitly discloses that the query is discarded, which is a useful hint that the operation is non-persistent. However, with no annotations, it does not clarify the return format, character-counting semantics, or edge-case 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 extremely concise: two short sentences, each earning its place. The action is front-loaded and the discarded-input note adds behavioral value without filler.

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

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

The tool is not safely invocable from the provided description: the central input ('search query') is absent from the schema, there is no output schema, and no annotations clarify behavior. An agent cannot determine which of the seven parameters to populate or what the response will be.

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 refers to a 'search query', but the input schema exposes the properties ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path, with no 'query' field. The description adds no mapping between the described purpose and any schema parameter, making the tool effectively uninvocable from the given information.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Count characters in a search query.' It also adds a meaningful behavioral note ('Query discarded'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools and the notion of a 'search query' is not represented in the input schema, which slightly weakens practical 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context for a search-query length count.

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 full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Short catalog' and gives no indication of side effects, return format, read-only nature, or the fact that several inputs are described in the schema as discarded. The behavioral burden is almost entirely unmet.

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

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

The description is one short sentence, so it is concise, but it is under-specified rather than economically informative. It does not front-load any actionable verb, usage context, or behavior that would help an agent select or invoke the 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?

With seven unrelated-looking string parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a single phrase about a catalog is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what to pass, what output to expect, or how this tool fits alongside siblings.

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

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

All seven parameters have descriptions in the input schema, so schema_description_coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain how parameters like ref, url, or json relate to an HTTP status code catalog.

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

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

The description names a resource ('common HTTP status codes') and suggests a catalog/reference function, but it lacks a specific verb and does not say whether the tool returns a list, looks up a code, or validates a ref. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings like fetch-status by topic, but not enough for an agent to know the actual operation.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status, compatibility, or validate-json. The description gives no context, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess the intended use case.

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 burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait, that the prompt is discarded, which is not obvious from the schema alone. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or any other behavioral details.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no redundant words, and the key behavioral fact 'Prompt discarded' is stated front and center. It earns its place with zero 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the 'three-step thinking template' actually contains or its format, but it does not. It also leaves unclear whether any of the many parameters are required or how the agent should construct a minimal valid 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?

The input schema already documents all 11 parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Prompt discarded' note adds a general statement that inputs are ignored, but it does not provide per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already says.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Return' and a distinct resource 'three-step thinking template', and the note 'Prompt discarded' clarifies the input is not used. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform validation, fetch, or lookup operations.

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 only says what it returns, not the circumstances under which an agent should invoke it, and it names no alternative tools or 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?

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states the result, not how inputs are consumed, which parameters are discarded, what validation happens, or what failure modes exist. The schema's repeated 'discarded after' language is not reflected 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the claim it makes, though it under-specifies invocation details.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only guide for correct invocation. It fails to identify the needed timezone input, ignores the unrelated schema fields, and gives no behavior or response information, making reliable use 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?

The schema properties each have descriptions, but none of them corresponds to a named IANA timezone. The description adds no mapping between its core 'named IANA timezone' concept and any parameter, so an agent cannot determine what value to pass to get the current time.

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 time for an IANA timezone, which distinguishes it from siblings like utc-time and iana-zones. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, and the schema provides no timezone parameter, leaving some ambiguity about how the intended purpose maps to actual 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related siblings such as utc-time, iana-zones, or geo-hint. There are no exclusions, conditions, or alternative-selection cues; an agent must rely entirely on the tool name and a one-line 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the result is a current UTC timestamp. It does not mention output format, side effects, or that the nine listed parameters are effectively ignored; the schema hints at this, but the description itself does not.

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 and front-loaded with no filler words. However, it is under-specified relative to the nine-parameter input schema, so the brevity limits its usefulness as a standalone explanation.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a four-word description is not sufficient. It fails to clarify that no arguments are required, what the timestamp format is, or how this tool relates to the sibling timezone-related tools.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies even though the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. The per-parameter descriptions in the schema, such as 'discarded after the shape check' and 'no disk access', already communicate that these parameters are optional or no-ops, though the tool description does not reinforce this.

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

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

The description 'Current UTC timestamp' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'utc-time' as a noun phrase. It does not use a verb or specify an action, and it does not differentiate the tool from siblings such as 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like timezone or iana-zones. There are no context cues, exclusions, or alternative-referencing statements for an agent to act on.

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

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

The description explicitly states the body is discarded, which signals a non-persistent, side-effect-free validation operation. Since there are no annotations, this is helpful but still minimal; it does not disclose the output shape or behavior on invalid input.

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 the core action front-loaded and the discard behavior as the only additional detail. Every word earns its place; no wasted text.

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

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

The description is overly terse for a tool whose schema contains seven parameters; it does not clarify how 'body' relates to the 'json' property or why the other parameters exist. There is no output schema, so an agent cannot tell what result to expect beyond a boolean validation.

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

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

The input schema already provides descriptions for all seven parameters, including the 'json' property as 'JSON text to validate', so schema coverage is high. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and the term 'body' is not explicitly mapped to the 'json' parameter, leaving a slight 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 uses a clear verb ('Check') and names the object (a JSON body), making the tool's core purpose evident. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling validation tools such as file-path-ok or browser-url-ok, so it lacks sibling 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?

The description implies the tool is for validating JSON, and the 'json' parameter description reinforces that. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over other format-checking siblings, nor does it state any conditions that select it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, network dependencies, rate limits, response format, or that other schema parameters are ignored or discarded. It only states the core data returned.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and data source. It is front-loaded and has no fluff, though the extreme brevity sacrifices useful operational detail.

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 7-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. An agent cannot tell which parameters are actually required, whether the extra parameters are ignored, or what the expected result looks like, making correct invocation rely on guesswork.

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 gives descriptions for all parameters, so schema coverage is high. The description identifies city as the relevant parameter for the weather lookup, but it does little to clarify the odd mix of extra parameters like ref, url, feed, host, json, and path, nor does it explain that only city matters.

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 the current temperature for a city, via Open-Meteo, which makes the fundamental purpose clear. It also differentiates it from sibling hint tools like geo-hint or lib-docs-hint, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch'.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or what conditions select it. The description only implies use when a current city temperature is needed, with no exclusions or comparison to sibling weather-adjacent 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?

The only behavioral detail is 'Body discarded,' which is useful but minimal. With no annotations, the description does not disclose redirect handling, error behavior, rate limits, or whether content type includes charset, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, and both sentences add information. However, it is too terse for a tool with nine unrelated optional parameters and no output schema, so the structure does not compensate for missing 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a large, incoherent parameter list, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return format, parameter selection, failure modes, or relationship to sibling tools.

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

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

Although the schema has per-parameter descriptions, they appear copy-pasted from unrelated tools (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name', 'JSON text to validate', 'IANA timezone name') and do not align with a web-fetch tool. The description does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters are relevant, so the input contract is effectively meaningless.

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 HTTP status and content type for a public URL and discards the body, so the core purpose is inferable. However, it lacks an explicit action verb and does not distinguish this from related sibling tools such as fetch-status or 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?

There is no guidance on when to use web-fetch versus alternatives like browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, fetch-status, or inspect-robots. The description does not mention any conditions, preferences, 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?

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: 'Title discarded after the call,' indicating no retention of the input. However, it omits return behavior, error handling, and whether the check hits Wikipedia live.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is concise and scannable, though slightly under-specified given the eight-property 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 simple existence check, the core purpose and the non-retention behavior are covered. But with no annotations, no output schema, and an eight-property input schema, an agent would benefit from knowing which parameter to pass and what the result shape is. The description is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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

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

The input schema already documents every parameter, including the `title` property as 'Wikipedia title to check,' so schema coverage is high. The description adds little beyond restating the core domain and the discard behavior, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' This is clear and distinguishes it from validator siblings like validate-json or domain-shape, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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

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

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use is implied by the purpose sentence, but the description does not help an agent decide between this and a related fetch/validation tool.

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