Europe/Athens clock

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 mentions 'Task text discarded' but does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or how parameters affect the outcome. The absence of any statement about safety or reversibility for a tool that 'finds' something is insufficient.

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

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

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the output list is concise. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of what the tool does.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no required ones, and no output schema. The description lists outputs but does not explain how the parameters influence the result, which parameters are relevant for a typical call, or the structure of the returned data. This is incomplete for a tool with such a wide parameter set.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add any semantic meaning beyond that, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema adequately documents parameters. The description mentions 'Task text discarded' but does not tie it to a specific 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 verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), and enumerates the returned artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like web-fetch or citation, which target different resources. The purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The description only says what it does, not the context in which it should be selected. For an agent comparing this to 27 siblings, the lack of explicit when-to-use instructions is a notable gap.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No browser is launched,' which is one minor behavior. It does not reveal whether the tool performs network requests, what it returns, or how it handles the various parameters. This is insufficient for a tool with no safety annotations.

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 (one sentence) but lacks structure. It does not front-load key information or provide any hierarchical organization. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with the parameters, what the return value looks like, or how to interpret the result. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without further investigation.

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

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

The schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters. While the schema is clear on individual params, the description does not explain why parameters like 'city', 'feed', or 'zone' are relevant to checking a URL, leaving semantic gaps that the schema alone cannot fill.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('whether a URL can be opened'), which gives a basic purpose. However, it does not clarify what 'opened' means (syntax, reachability, etc.) and fails to differentiate from siblings like normalize-url or fetch-status. The presence of 9 seemingly unrelated parameters further muddies the purpose.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent has no idea whether this is for URL format validation, HTTP reachability, or something else.

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 states 'Page content is not stored,' which is a behavioral trait, but it does not disclose other significant behaviors such as the discarding of several parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path, query) as indicated in the schema. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it omits these side effects and does not clarify the return format or error behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core function. It is efficient and avoids padding, though it could benefit from a bit more detail. Given its brevity, it earns a high conciseness score.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only covers the core return values (host, scheme, HTTP status) and one behavioral note. It does not explain the purpose of the many parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path, query, zone, etc.), nor when to use it over siblings, nor the response structure. This is grossly inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters; it only mentions 'URL' generically without referencing specific parameters. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description does not need to compensate, but it also adds no extra 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or web-fetch that might also return HTTP status, so it lacks explicit differentiation. The name 'citation' is vague but the description clarifies the action.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparison to siblings like fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The description only states what it returns, not when it is preferred.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy/retention note but says nothing about the actual operation: does it make network calls, access the filesystem, mutate state, or return a classification? It does not describe any side effects or safety implications. The description is nearly silent on behavior beyond the vague 'classify' and the privacy note.

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

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

The description is only two short sentences, which is efficient in word count but severely under-specified. It is front-loaded with 'Show how this request is classified,' but that statement is so vague it offers no value. The second sentence about identifiers is a minor privacy note. Conciseness should be balanced with completeness; here the brevity is a defect, not a virtue.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a tool name that suggests a cross-domain classification, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent has no idea what inputs are expected, how they are combined, what the classification result looks like, or how to interpret the output. The description does not enable correct invocation at all.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has an individual description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description itself adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate to the classification or what constitutes a 'compatibility' check. Since the schema already covers parameter semantics, the baseline of 3 applies, but the description contributes zero extra insight.

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

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

The description 'Show how this request is classified' is extremely vague. It does not specify a clear verb+resource (e.g., 'classify a URL' or 'determine compatibility of a GitHub repo') and provides no differentiation from the many sibling tools like normalize-url, validate-json, or domain-shape. The purpose is essentially unstated—'classified' could mean anything, and the tool name 'compatibility' offers only a hint. This fails to tell an agent what the tool actually does.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling tools cover specific domains (URL checks, JSON validation, timezone lookups, etc.), but this description does not say whether 'compatibility' is a general fallback or a specific check. An agent cannot decide between this and a sibling based on the 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 must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions HEADing a URL and returning status, omitting what happens with the other 8 parameters (e.g., city, zone, query) and their discard behavior. The tool's side effects, network requirements, and error handling are entirely undisclosed.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being misleading. It does not earn its place because it omits critical information about the tool's broader functionality. The structure lacks any breakdown of the various operations implied by the schema.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the non-URL parameters, what the tool returns beyond 'status', or how to use it for the other checks. The agent cannot correctly invoke this tool for most of its intended use cases based on the description.

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

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

While the schema has 100% description coverage for each parameter, the tool description does not explain how these parameters relate to the stated purpose of 'HEAD a public URL'. The description mentions only 'url', but the schema includes many unrelated parameters that seem to belong to different operations. The description fails to provide a unifying semantic framework, leaving the agent confused about which parameters are relevant for what.

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

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

The description states a specific action (HEAD a public URL and return status only), but the schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (city, zone, query, etc.) that are not explained. This makes the tool's actual purpose ambiguous and inconsistent with the description. It does not differentiate from siblings like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, and the described behavior only covers one of many possible uses.

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 its siblings or alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. The description is too terse to infer appropriate usage.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses one detail ('Path discarded') but omits what the tool actually returns, whether it makes network calls, or its safety profile. The agent cannot infer the outcome or side effects.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks necessary detail about behavior, return value, and usage. The single sentence does provide the key point (parses Figma URL, discards path) but is not appropriately sized for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations.

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. No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not mention the result format, the effect of the other parameters, or the tool's relationship to sibling tools. An agent cannot confidently call this tool based on the provided information.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents each parameter, but the descriptions are generic (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') and do not tie to the tool's Figma-specific purpose. The tool description adds no clarity about which parameters are relevant — only 'url' seems plausible, but the others (city, feed, json, etc.) are unrelated and unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of tool-specific parameter guidance.

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 resource (Figma file URL) and an action (parse), but 'parse' is vague — it does not clarify whether the tool validates, extracts components, or returns a boolean. It does not differentiate from sibling shape-check tools like domain-shape 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about when to prefer figma-url-shape over normalize-url or browser-url-ok, and does not state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does not state that the tool makes a network call to Open-Meteo, whether it is read-only, or what happens with the many parameters described as 'discarded'. The description fails to clarify that only the 'city' parameter is used, leaving behavioral expectations unclear.

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

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

The description is very concise, consisting of a single sentence. It front-loads the core purpose but sacrifices necessary detail. Given the complexity of the schema (9 parameters) and the lack of output schema, the brevity is not appropriate; it feels under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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

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

This tool is severely incomplete. With 9 optional parameters, no required ones, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not tell an agent which parameter to use, what the expected output format is, or any behavioral details (e.g., network dependency, error handling). An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the current definition.

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

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

While the schema descriptions cover all parameters, they are generic and unrelated to geocoding (e.g., 'url' for normalization, 'json' for validation). The tool description does not explain which parameter(s) to supply for a place, nor does it resolve the ambiguity. An agent would be uncertain whether to use 'city' or any other field, and the description adds no 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 clearly states the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like weather-hint or iana-zones, and the input schema contains many unrelated parameters (url, feed, json, etc.) that could confuse an agent about the tool's actual scope.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is specifically for geocoding, nor does it exclude other uses. No alternatives or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'parse', which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose what happens on invalid input, whether any network calls are made (likely none), what the return format is, or that all other parameters are discarded. The schema's per-parameter notes about 'discarded' are not reflected in the description. This is a significant gap for a tool that an agent may invoke blindly.

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, tightly constructed sentence that states the core purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, conveying the essential information immediately. There is zero wasted words, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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

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

The tool is relatively simple in concept, but the description is incomplete for an agent to use it correctly. It does not explain the return value (presumably an object with owner and repo), error handling for non-GitHub URLs, or that the other eight parameters are irrelevant and ignored. The schema hints at this via 'discarded' notes, but the description should at least acknowledge that only the URL is used. Additionally, there is no output schema, so the description should describe the return shape, but it doesn't. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is insufficient.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't clarify that only 'url' is actually used, or how 'ref' or other parameters are ignored. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL' clearly states a specific verb (parse), a specific resource (owner and repo), and a specific input type (GitHub URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like domain-shape and figma-url-shape, which target different URL formats. However, the input schema includes nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) that are discarded, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual scope. The description doesn't clarify that only the 'url' parameter is relevant, so the purpose is clear in intent but slightly undermined by the schema's broader surface.

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 when a GitHub URL needs parsing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of when NOT to use it (e.g., for non-GitHub URLs). The guidance is implicit from the name and description, but not explicit. This meets the 'implied usage' level but falls short of clear context or explicit alternative routing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions 'Titles discarded,' which is cryptic and does not clarify side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or return format. The tool's behavior beyond counting is entirely opaque.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, but it lacks any structure or detail beyond two sentences. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, providing no actionable information for 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to invoke it, what the parameters mean for this tool, or any edge cases. An agent cannot reasonably use this tool correctly.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the nine parameters are entirely unrelated to the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'ref', 'city', 'zone'), and the description adds no clarification about which parameters are actually used. The schema is misleading, and the description fails to compensate for the gap, leaving an agent unable to determine what to pass.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('Count') and resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), which is more specific than a tautology. However, it does not elaborate on the tool's context or how it differs from siblings, and the phrase 'Titles discarded' is ambiguous without further explanation.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred. The description provides no context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and safety. It mentions 'public' and 'group counts only' but does not describe network access, failure modes, rate limits, or that most parameters are discarded. The behavior is under-specified for a tool that performs an external fetch.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that is immediately clear and front-loaded. It wastes no words and communicates the core purpose efficiently. This is exemplary conciseness for a 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?

Given nine parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format beyond 'group counts', doesn't indicate which parameters are required or optional for typical use, and doesn't mention that many parameters are discarded after a check. An agent would struggle to know how to invoke this tool correctly without examining the schema deeply.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is individually documented. However, the description adds no information about how parameters relate to the task; for instance, it doesn't clarify which parameter (url, host) is needed to specify the robots.txt source. Since the schema covers parameter meanings, the baseline 3 applies, but the description could have reinforced parameter usage.

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

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

The description states a clear action (fetch a public robots.txt) and a specific output (group counts only). This distinguishes it from generic fetch tools like web-fetch or fetch-status, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The verb 'fetch' and the resource 'robots.txt' are specific, and the qualifier 'group counts only' narrows the purpose.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., web-fetch, fetch-status, domain-shape). No mention of alternatives, conditions, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for a tool with nine 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. The only behavioral note is 'Key discarded,' which hints at no persistence but does not disclose whether the check is local or network-based, whether it is read-only, or what side effects might occur. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise but lacks any structural breakdown, which is acceptable given the schema handles parameter 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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a valid Jira key shape, what the tool returns, or any edge cases. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from this 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%, so each of the 9 parameters has a description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('Jira issue key shape'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. The purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as other shape validators. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

The description discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention that the other eight parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are discarded and only 'url' is used, a significant behavior given the schema. With no annotations to cover this, the description falls short on transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, given the schema complexity, it may be too brief to convey essential usage details, but the conciseness itself is good.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that only the 'url' parameter is relevant, nor does it describe behavior for invalid URLs or the exact format of the returned origin, host, and path. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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

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

The schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already states, and it does not clarify which parameter is the primary input for 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 the tool returns origin, host, and path from a URL and drops query/fragment. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling shape tools by naming the exact output. However, the input schema includes many unrelated parameters, which could confuse an agent about which parameter is the URL, slightly weakening 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the query is discarded, but it does not explain what happens with the other parameters (e.g., ref, url, json) or whether they are validated or ignored. The parameter descriptions in the schema say 'discarded after the shape check' for several fields, suggesting the tool might perform shape checks, but the tool description is silent on this. This ambiguity is a significant transparency gap.

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 (two short sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and to the point, with no unnecessary filler. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices essential context, which is a structural trade-off. The conciseness itself is good, but the completeness suffers.

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 required fields, and no output schema, yet the description only explains the use of 'query'. It does not clarify the purpose of the other parameters or whether they are used, ignored, or validated. Given the complexity of the schema and the presence of many sibling tools, an agent needs more context to decide when to invoke this tool. The description is inadequate for safe and 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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for all nine parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'query' – it does not clarify that other parameters are ignored or how they interact. The description does not compensate for any schema gaps, but since the schema is complete, this is acceptable.

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 action ('Count characters in a search query') and resource ('search query'). The phrase 'Query discarded' indicates the query is not retained, which adds a behavioral nuance. However, it does not clarify what the other eight schema parameters are for, which could confuse an agent about the tool's actual scope.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many shape-check and URL-validation tools, but the description does not mention any exclusion criteria, alternatives, or specific use cases. An agent has no way to know if this tool is appropriate for a given task beyond its 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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It doesn't mention whether inputs are validated, discarded, or used to filter the catalog. The schema hints at some parameters being discarded after checks, but the description itself gives no behavioral context. This is a significant gap for a tool with side-effect-like behavior.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, making it concise in length. However, it is not appropriately sized because it lacks substantive content. It is not front-loaded with critical information; instead, it offers a vague statement that fails to guide the agent. The brevity is not a virtue here since it omits essential 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how the catalog relates to the parameters, what the tool returns, or any side effects. An agent would be unable to use this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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

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

The input schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3. No extra value is provided, but the schema compensates.

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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' is a noun phrase, not an action. It does not state what the tool does with its inputs. The 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are completely unrelated to HTTP status codes, creating confusion about the tool's actual function. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status, which likely returns status codes for a 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions. Siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok could overlap, but no differentiation is given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded, indicating input is ignored, which is a useful behavioral fact. However, it doesn't state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or what the output format is beyond 'three-step thinking template'.

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 zero redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the key caveat about discarding the prompt. 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?

For a tool with nine parameters and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain why parameters exist, what the three-step template looks like, or how the result is used. The agent is left uncertain about the tool's practical value and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly saying the prompt is discarded, implying all nine parameters are irrelevant to the tool's behavior. This is crucial context that the schema alone doesn't convey, preventing the agent from expecting parameter-dependent outputs.

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 a three-step thinking template, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are all about checking URLs, shapes, or data. However, it does not elaborate on what the template contains or how it relates to the prompt.

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. It doesn't mention any conditions, use cases, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It fails to mention that the input parameters (e.g., 'ref', 'url', 'city') are discarded and have no effect on the time output, which could mislead an agent into thinking they influence the result. It also omits details like DST handling or offset.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with the purpose front-loaded. However, it is under-specified; while not verbose, it omits essential context such as how parameters are handled, making it less useful than a more structured description would be.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too minimal to cover what an agent needs: it doesn't explain why unrelated parameters exist, what the return value looks like, or any timezone specifics. It is incomplete for a tool with such a complex 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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a description that notes it is 'discarded' or used for a different purpose. The description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation, even though the descriptions are unusual.

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 local time in Europe/Athens' clearly states a specific verb (returns current time) and resource (Europe/Athens timezone). It is distinct from the sibling 'utc-time' which presumably returns UTC, and from 'timezone' which might be more generic. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'iana-zones'.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The description does not mention selection criteria, prerequisites, 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?

The description discloses that the body is discarded, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention that many input parameters are effectively ignored (as indicated in the schema descriptions), nor does it cover side effects, authentication, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but is insufficient.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and efficient, though its brevity contributes to the lack of 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?

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the basic HTTP status/content-type behavior and does not explain how the other parameters are used or ignored, nor what the response format looks like. This is inadequate for an agent to handle diverse call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, relying entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the core function: retrieving HTTP status and content type for a public URL. It names a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which likely overlap. The inclusion of many unrelated optional parameters in the schema also muddies the purpose slightly.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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