Europe/Amsterdam clock

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 state that 'Page content is not stored,' which is a meaningful privacy guarantee. However, it does not mention any other side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or the fact that json input is discarded after validation (which is only in the schema). This is a partial disclosure.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the privacy note is a useful addition. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical parameter context, so while it is concise, it is not sufficiently 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It explains the purpose of url but leaves host, json, and zone ambiguous. It also does not describe the return structure or any error conditions. An agent would not know how to properly call this tool for a task involving JSON or timezone parameters.

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 minimal meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that the url parameter is used to return host/scheme/status, but it does not explain how host, json, and zone are used together or what the expected output format is. The schema descriptions are self-sufficient, so the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not add significant value.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This distinguishes it from siblings like normalize-url and validate-json in that it focuses on URL metadata rather than URL rewriting or JSON validation. However, it does not mention the json or zone parameters, which obscures the full scope of the tool.

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 reference sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, nor does it describe scenarios where this tool would be preferred. An agent is left to infer usage from the name and partial 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?

The description includes a data-handling note ('No identifiers are retained') and the parameter description for 'json' mentions 'discarded after the check', providing some transparency about data retention. However, it does not disclose whether the tool performs any side effects, permissions, or if it is read-only, so 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 extremely concise, using a single sentence and a short privacy note. It contains no redundant words or unnecessary detail, making it easy to read quickly.

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 in context: it does not explain how the four seemingly unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone) contribute to the classification, nor does it describe any output or result format. The lack of output schema further compounds the incompleteness, leaving the agent without a full picture of the tool's behavior.

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?

Each parameter has a short description (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'IANA timezone name'), which clarifies the parameter's type or typical content. However, these descriptions do not explain how the parameters relate to the tool's classification purpose, leaving their functional role unclear.

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 'shows how this request is classified' but does not specify what kind of classification is performed, nor how it relates to the tool name 'compatibility'. The verb 'show' is vague and leaves the tool's core function ambiguous.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without any decision support for tool 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?

There are no annotations (e.g., readOnly, destructive) and the description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or return behavior. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden, but it fails to mention whether the operation is safe, what it outputs, or if it has 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 very short and to the point. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. The qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' adds a small amount of context but is not overly long. The structure is simple and easy to parse.

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?

Even though the tool is simple, the description is not complete because the parameters are entirely mismatched with the stated purpose, leaving the agent unsure how to invoke it. There is also no mention of the expected output format (e.g., list of labels). The description fails to provide enough context for correct usage.

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

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

The description adds no meaning to any parameter. The parameters (url, host, json, timezone) are unrelated to the stated purpose of splitting a hostname into labels. The schema-level descriptions are generic and also mismatched (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' for url). The parameter semantics are completely unclear and inconsistent with the tool's 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 action 'Split a hostname into labels', which is a specific verb and resource. The qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' hints at a differentiation, though no sibling tool explicitly includes that data. The purpose is understandable.

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

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

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies a contrast but does not name a competing tool, and no sibling tools are referenced. There is no clear usage context or decision 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 and no mention of side effects, read-only nature, or output format; but list lookup is implicitly non-destructive.

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?

Single clear sentence with no unnecessary words; front-loaded purpose.

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

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

Too sparse to cover the odd mix of parameters (url, host, json, zone) or return behavior; leaves agent uncertain how 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?

Schema has 100% param descriptions, but url/host/json descriptions seem unrelated to IANA timezone names; tool description doesn't explain their role. Zone is 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?

States it provides common IANA timezone names for clock calls; clear enough but lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns'.

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?

Only hint is 'for clock calls'; no explicit when-to-use or comparison with sibling timezone 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, and the description does not disclose side effects, destructive actions, or any behavioral nuances. There is no indication of what happens with the input (e.g., whether the URL is fetched, whether JSON is validated, etc.).

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 has a clear subject-verb-object structure, but it is overly terse and omits critical details. The single sentence does not provide enough context to resolve the mismatch between the stated purpose and the 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?

Given the radical mismatch between the description and the parameter schema, the description is contextually incomplete. It fails to explain how the tool's inputs relate to its outputs, and it does not provide enough information for an agent to determine correct usage.

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

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

The parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate') do not align with the stated purpose of fetching robots.txt. The description does not clarify how each parameter is used, making it impossible to understand what inputs are actually expected.

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

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

The description states a verb and object ('fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts'), but the parameter schema includes url, host, json, and zone, which are inconsistent with a robots.txt fetcher. The purpose is unclear because the parameters suggest a different tool entirely.

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 sibling tools (e.g., validate-json, utc-time) indicate possible overlapping functionality, but the description does not distinguish this tool from them.

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 describe side effects or safety, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions dropping query and fragment, but does not clarify whether the input is mutated, whether errors are thrown, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 to the point, using only two sentences with no unnecessary wording. It is concise, though slightly too terse given the confusing parameter list.

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 lacks an output schema and does not specify the return format beyond naming the extracted components. The mismatched parameters create additional unanswered questions, making the description incomplete for reliable use.

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

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

Each parameter has a schema description, but only url aligns with the tool's stated purpose. The host, json, and zone parameters appear unrelated, and no explanation is given for how they relate to normalization.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query/fragment. However, the parameter list includes unrelated fields such as host, json, and zone, which makes the actual purpose ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include validate-json and timezone-related tools, but the description does not explain how normalize-url fits among them.

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 and no descriptive detail, the behavior is completely opaque. There is no mention of read-only status, side effects, output format, or any other runtime characteristics.

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 no redundant wording. It loses a point because this extreme brevity omits needed context rather than efficiently conveying it.

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

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

The description does not explain what the tool returns, how inputs affect behavior, or what distinguishes it from the sibling tools. Given the lack of an output schema, this leaves the agent without enough information to use the tool confidently.

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 each parameter has a generic description, those descriptions are unrelated to the stated purpose of an HTTP status catalog. The parameters appear to belong to other tools, and no explanation connects url, host, json, or zone 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 names a recognizable resource ('common HTTP status codes'), but it is a noun phrase rather than an action statement and gives no clue how the tool should be invoked. It is further undermined by input parameters that have no apparent connection to HTTP status codes.

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 use this tool, when not to use it, or how it compares with sibling tools such as validate-json or timezone. The description provides no situational context whatsoever.

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 states only that it returns the current time but does not disclose the output format, how invalid or unknown zone names are handled, or whether the result includes timezone offsets. This is a minimal gap for a read-only lookup but still 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?

A single sentence with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and efficient. It loses a point only because it is so terse it omits any clarifying detail about the mismatched parameters.

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

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

With four parameters (none required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify which parameter is the operative one, what the return value looks like, or how it differs from sibling time tools. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly given the irrelevant url/host/json parameters.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters. However, three of the four parameters (url, host, json) are clearly unrelated to a timezone lookup and appear to be artifacts of a shared schema; the description offers no clarification that only 'zone' is relevant. This is confusing and adds negative value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a clear verb-resource pair: retrieving the current time for a named IANA timezone. It distinguishes itself from sibling utc-time (fixed UTC) and iana-zones (zone listing), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to know what the tool does.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as utc-time or tz-europe-amsterdam. The description implies usage for any named zone but offers no exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer which time tool fits a given task.

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 burden. It only states that it provides the current local time, without mentioning output format, timezone handling, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with a generic 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 extremely brief (one sentence), which is concise, but it lacks structure and critical information. It is not front-loaded with essential usage details; it simply states a fact without context or guidance.

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

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

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or how it differs from siblings. 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 description coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description does not explain how the parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to the stated purpose. The description mentions 'Europe/Amsterdam' while the schema includes a generic 'zone' parameter, creating inconsistency and leaving the agent without guidance on which parameters to use.

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

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

The description states a clear purpose ('Current local time in Europe/Amsterdam'), identifying a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', and the input schema includes unrelated parameters (url, host, json) that create confusion about 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 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or context for choosing 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 provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Current UTC timestamp' with no mention of side effects, return format, or the relevance of the schema parameters. The unrelated parameters suggest the tool may do more than stated, leaving behavior completely opaque.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks any structure or additional context. It is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful, and the sentence does not earn its place because it conveys almost no actionable 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 four unrelated parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with the parameters, what it returns, or how it relates to siblings like 'timezone'. An agent cannot correctly 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?

The schema describes each parameter (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), but these descriptions have no connection to the tool's stated purpose of returning a UTC timestamp. The tool description adds no meaning to the parameters and does not explain how they affect the output. With 100% schema coverage but irrelevant descriptions, the description fails to resolve the mismatch.

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

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

The description 'Current UTC timestamp' names a clear resource (UTC timestamp) and a verb (current), but it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', and it completely ignores the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) in the schema, which are unrelated to a timestamp. The mismatch makes the 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 alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. An agent has no basis for deciding between this and 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'.

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

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

The description discloses a side effect: 'The body is discarded.' However, it does not explain other behaviors, such as whether the tool reads from the 'url' or 'host' parameters, or why 'zone' is needed. Given the mismatch between the description and the schema, transparency is limited and potentially misleading.

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

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

The description is concise, using only two short sentences to convey the core function. It avoids unnecessary words and is well-structured for a brief tool description.

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

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

The description is severely incomplete given the complex schema with four parameters and the presence of sibling tools. It does not explain the purpose of the extra parameters or how the tool integrates with other tools, making it inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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

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

The schema descriptions for parameters are inconsistent with the tool's purpose. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name', which are unrelated to JSON validation. The description offers no clarification on these parameters, leaving an agent unable to determine their role.

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, providing a specific verb and resource. However, the term 'body' is somewhat ambiguous without additional context, and the description does not clarify what constitutes a body in terms of the input parameters.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools. No mention of scenarios where validation is appropriate, nor any comparison to sibling tools like 'normalize-url' or 'timezone'. The description provides no usage direction.

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