Europe/Belgrade clock

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Task text discarded' and 'remote MCP hops,' but it does not clearly state whether the tool itself makes external network calls, incurs costs, requires authentication, or has other side effects. 'Pay-per-call' may describe Monid rather than this tool's own 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds a critical privacy behavior. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary 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 nine optional parameters, no required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not tell the agent which parameters, if any, are needed, whether a no-argument call is expected, or what 'Monid' is. The output inventory is helpful but not sufficient for confident 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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond the global 'Task text discarded' note and does not clarify how the nine optional parameters relate to the tool's stated purpose or whether any should be supplied.

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 concrete action ('Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway') and enumerates the returned content: CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, and remote MCP hops. 'Monid' is unexplained, and no sibling differentiation is provided, but the core purpose is still identifiable.

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 an implied use case: call this tool when you need Monid's gateway setup or MCP-related documentation. 'Task text discarded' is a useful exclusion, but the description does not state explicit conditions, when-not-to-use cases, or alternatives among the 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals only one trait: no browser is launched. It does not state whether the check makes network requests, what side effects occur, what 'ok' means, or what happens when invalid input is provided. The schema hints that many parameters are 'discarded after the shape check', suggesting a generic validation behavior, but the description does not surface this.

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, both front-loaded and free of filler. The second sentence ('No browser is launched') adds behavioral value and earns its place. It could be considered overly terse given the tool's 9-parameter schema, but as a standalone statement it is well structured 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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a complex 9-parameter schema, yet the description is only two sentences. It fails to explain the return value, the definition of 'ok', which parameters are relevant, or how this tool differs from sibling URL-related tools. The schema covers parameter descriptions well, but the overall context around invocation, expected output, and edge cases is largely missing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a meaningful description and the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics; it does not explain which parameter should be used or how the various parameters relate to the URL check. The schema descriptions are informative (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'), but the description does not clarify how they map 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 ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a useful clarifier ('No browser is launched'), so it avoids tautology. However, the meaning of 'can be opened' is vague—it could refer to syntax validity, DNS resolution, HTTP status, or browser rendering. The description also conflicts with the broad input schema, which includes many non-URL parameters (city, json, zone, query), making the tool's actual scope unclear.

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 versus its many siblings such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternative tools, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice. The only hint is the negated behavior ('No browser is launched'), which implies a lightweight check but does not help an agent decide.

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 only mentions that the expression is discarded; it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, what errors can be raised, or what output is 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 concise at only two sentences, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks any mapping to the nine parameters and offers no usable structure to help an agent 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 nine heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is radically incomplete. The mismatch between the arithmetic purpose and the schema makes it nearly impossible for an agent to confidently select or correctly invoke this tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not indicate which parameter, if any, holds the arithmetic expression, leaving a significant gap between the stated purpose and the actual parameters.

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 operation ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic'), but the input schema contains no expression parameter; instead it lists unrelated parameters like ref, url, city, and query. This mismatch prevents an agent from mapping the stated purpose to any callable argument and does not distinguish the tool from its many sibling check/shape tools.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Expression discarded' hints at a non-persistent operation, but it does not explain when calc-eval should be selected over similar validation or shape-check 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 disclosure 'Page content is not stored' adds a useful behavior beyond the minimal output statement, and with no annotations it is a meaningful safety signal. However, it does not mention network side effects, redirects, failures, or anything else about how the URL is handled, so transparency is partial.

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 tight and front-loads the return value, then adds a relevant privacy note. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool, though the brevity contributes to missing usage context.

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

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

Despite having a seven-parameter schema and no annotations or output schema, the description only covers the URL result and one storage behavior. It leaves ambiguous which parameters are actually used, what the agent should do with the discarded inputs, and when to prefer 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?

The input schema already describes every parameter, including which are discarded, so the description is not required to repeat that. It only adds that the operation centers on a URL, which maps to the 'url' parameter, but adds no detail on parameter relationships or required values.

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 output (host, scheme, HTTP status) for a URL, enough to understand the tool's core function. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, so it lacks the differentiation needed for 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?

No guidance is given about when to use citation versus closely related tools such as fetch-status or web-fetch. The sentence about page content not being stored hints at a safe use case, but no explicit alternative or exclusion is 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'No identifiers are retained' is a useful privacy-related behavioral disclosure, but the description still does not say whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or what the classification result looks like.

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-loads the core action, and the privacy sentence is not wasted. However, for a tool with nine optional parameters, the extreme brevity leaves out essential selection and output context.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of how the classification result is returned or which parameter to use. The description is far too incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly beyond guessing.

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 input schema already documents each parameter. The tool description adds no guidance about parameter selection or combination, so it stays at the baseline.

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

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

The description supplies a verb and object ('show how this request is classified'), so it is not a pure tautology, but 'classification' is never defined: the agent is not told what classification scheme, categories, or output to expect. It also does not distinguish the tool from the many sibling shape-check and lookup tools.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to call compatibility, which sibling to prefer, or what input to pass. The only contextual hint comes from the schema, not 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one meaningful thing—that the tool does not provide WHOIS or ownership data—but it says nothing about network access, validation behavior, error handling, or what the returned labels look like.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately terse, though it is arguably too sparse to fully support 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must provide enough context. It does not explain the return format, which parameter to use, whether a URL or bare hostname is expected, or how invalid input is handled.

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. Each parameter has its own description including discard behavior, but the tool description adds no guidance about which of the nine optional parameters is relevant for domain-shape calls.

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 ('split') and resource ('a hostname'), and the phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. However, the large, generic input schema introduces some ambiguity about what this tool actually operates on.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no sibling is named. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies a boundary, but it does not tell an agent when to choose a different tool or what to pass.

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, and it does reveal the HTTP method, public scope, and status-only output. However, it does not describe error behavior, the exact return format, or the fact that many accepted parameters appear unrelated to a URL HEAD request and are discarded.

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

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, naming method, resource, and result in order. It is concise, though arguably too terse given 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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is incomplete. It does not explain which parameter to use, what the returned status looks like, or why the many non-URL parameters are accepted, leaving an agent likely to misuse 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify that 'url' is likely the operative parameter among nine optional fields.

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 (HEAD), a resource (public URL), and a narrow outcome (status only), so an agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling URL-related tools such as web-fetch, browser-url-ok, or status-catalog.

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 word 'only' implies the tool is for lightweight status checks rather than content retrieval, and the HEAD method reinforces that. Still, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the path is discarded, but does not state validation behavior, return format, side effects, or what happens with invalid URLs. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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

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

The description is extremely brief and front-loaded, which is good for conciseness, but it sacrifices essential context. It is not verbose, but it omits critical information needed to understand the tool's scope and usage.

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

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

A tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations requires a thorough description to be usable. This one-sentence description fails to explain the role of most parameters, the expected output, or how this tool fits among its many siblings. It is completely inadequate for an agent to call correctly.

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

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

The schema documents all 9 parameters, but the tool description does not explain how these parameters relate to parsing a Figma URL. Many parameters (city, feed, json, zone, query) appear unrelated, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving agents uncertain about which parameters 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 the action (parse) and the resource (a Figma file URL), and notes that the path is discarded. This distinguishes it from URL normalization or fetching tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool is preferred over similar URL-handling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'No disk access', which is a useful safety trait, but it fails to explain what 'looks safe' means, what the return format is, whether it returns a boolean, or how it behaves for the other 8 parameters. The behavior for most of the tool's surface area is completely 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 extremely short (two sentences), which is concise, but it under-specifies the tool's actual scope. It front-loads the path check but ignores the other parameters, making the description unhelpful. Every sentence could be retained, but the content is incomplete, so it fails the 'earn its place' test because it misleads by omission.

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 complexity of 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It only addresses one parameter and provides no information on return values, error behavior, or the purpose of the remaining parameters. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool for anything other than the path parameter, and even that is 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 schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter has a basic description. The tool description adds no extra meaning for the parameters beyond the path one, and even for that it only restates 'no disk access'. Since the schema already documents all parameters, the baseline is 3. The description does not help clarify the role of the unrelated parameters, but it doesn't actively contradict them either.

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 path looks safe') but it only covers the 'path' parameter. The input schema includes 8 other unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query), suggesting the tool is a generic shape-checker, yet the description does not mention these. The purpose is unclear and potentially misleading, as it doesn't distinguish what this tool does for the other parameters or how it differs from sibling shape-check tools like 'browser-url-ok' or 'figma-url-shape'.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description contains no mention of context, conditions, or exclusions. It does not reference any sibling tool or explain the appropriate scenarios for checking a path versus other shape checks. Agents receive no help selecting this tool from the large sibling list.

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, this sentence carries the full transparency burden, but it only names the external provider. It does not mention that Open-Meteo is called over the network, how failures or rate limits behave, or that every parameter except the place input is discarded after a shape check.

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

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

The single sentence is compact and front-loaded with the core function, avoiding filler. But it is so terse that it omits essential routing and input information, making under-specification the limiting factor rather than prose quality.

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 output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not clarify which parameter to provide, what the returned coordinates look like, or what safety or network expectations exist, so an agent cannot invoke it reliably from 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?

Although all parameters have schema descriptions, the tool description does not map 'place' to the `city` parameter or explain how `url`, `ref`, `path`, `zone`, `query`, or `json` relate to a geographic lookup. The `city` schema description even references a weather hint, not geocoding, so the agent cannot confidently select the right input.

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 phrase 'Latitude and longitude for a place' communicates a geocoding result and identifies Open-Meteo as the source, so it is more than a tautology. However, it never states which of the nine schema parameters supplies the place, leaving a clear gap between purpose and invocation.

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

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use geo-hint instead of closely related siblings such as weather-hint, timezone, or normalize-url. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names, so an agent must guess 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?

Annotations already declare idempotent, readOnlyHint, safe, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it parses GitHub URLs; it does not disclose invalid-input behavior or other operational traits, but no contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded sentence says exactly what the tool does with no filler. 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 simple parsing tool, the description plus output schema and context signal are largely sufficient. The only gap is that the noisy generic input schema could have been disambiguated with a note that only the GitHub URL is relevant.

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 every parameter, but many descriptions are generic and unrelated to this tool. The description adds GitHub-specific meaning by tying the operation to a GitHub URL and owner/repo output, but it does not explicitly map the url parameter as the sole relevant input or clarify that the other fields are ignored.

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 and resource: parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like normalize-url or domain-shape by naming the exact output and input domain.

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 intended use is implied—extract owner/repo from a GitHub URL—but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. An agent could infer the scenario, but it is 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: 'Titles discarded,' meaning the returned count is not accompanied by story titles. It also implies a live, current fetch. However, it does not mention output format, rate limits, network dependence, or whether any parameters are ignored.

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 filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and 'Titles discarded' adds useful behavioral clarification without extra verbosity.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain whether all parameters are optional noise, which one is relevant, what the exact return value looks like, or how failures should be handled. An agent cannot confidently know whether to call with zero arguments or with some specific parameter.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions are present and detailed, but the tool description does not explain which of the nine optional parameters, if any, affect the HN front-page count. Several parameters, such as 'ref,' 'city,' and 'zone,' seem unrelated to Hacker News, which could confuse an agent about what to pass.

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

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

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' This is clear and distinct from generic tools like web-fetch or normalize-url. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from a sibling like web-fetch, which could also fetch Hacker News content.

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 when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs the current Hacker News front-page story count. It provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative to prefer. 'Titles discarded' hints that this tool is not for retrieving titles, but no alternative is named.

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, return values, side effects, or how inputs are processed. The tool's behavior is 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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks essential information about the tool's action and purpose, making it insufficient for effective use.

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 annotations, and no output schema, the description must explain tool behavior and usage context. It does neither, making it wholly inadequate for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, meeting the baseline. However, the tool's overall purpose is unclear, so the parameter descriptions do not clarify how they relate to the tool's function. The description adds no extra meaning 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 is a noun phrase, 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls,' which does not state a clear action or resource. It is not a tautology but remains vague—does the tool list zones, validate them, or something else? It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone or utc-time.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of siblings, no conditions, no exclusions. The agent is left entirely to infer usage from the name and vague 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. It does state a key limitation: 'return group counts only' implies the tool does not return the full robots.txt content. But it gives no information about network behavior (redirects, timeouts), error handling, whether the URL must be public, or what happens if the robots.txt is missing. This is minimal transparency but not contradictory.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and result. The only structural downside is that it omits any mention of the target parameter, leaving an important gap despite the concise phrasing.

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 8-parameter schema with many unrelated fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not sufficiently complete. It fails to explain how the parameters map to the robots.txt fetch, what 'group counts' means, or what fields appear in the response. An agent with this definition would likely struggle to construct a valid invocation. The phrase 'return group counts only' plus the confusing parameter list leaves too many unresolved questions.

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 does provide descriptions for each parameter, so schema coverage is high, but those descriptions are largely unrelated to the stated purpose. For example, 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call' and 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' have nothing to do with fetching robots.txt. The description adds no parameter guidance, so an agent cannot tell whether to populate 'url', 'host', or 'path' to specify the robots.txt source. The schema's per-parameter descriptions are present but misleading for the core function, so the description does not meaningfully compensate.

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

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

The description is a single clear sentence: 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.' It names a specific verb ('fetch'), a specific resource ('robots.txt'), and a specific output ('group counts only'), which distinguishes it from generic fetch tools like web-fetch. However, the input schema lists 8 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) none of which is obviously the robots.txt location, creating ambiguity about what the tool actually operates on.

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 web-fetch, fetch-status, or normalize-url. The description does not state conditions like 'use this when you need just the group counts from a robots.txt file' or mention when not to use it. The sibling list contains multiple fetch/normalize tools, so the absence of any such direction forces the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add some behavioral context: 'Key discarded' and schema notes like 'no disk access' and 'discarded after the check' suggest a read-only, non-retaining operation. But it does not disclose what the tool returns, how shape validation behaves, or what happens when the key is invalid.

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 the main purpose is front-loaded. However, the fragment 'Key discarded' is ambiguous because no key parameter exists, and the brevity creates more confusion than clarity for a tool with nine optional inputs.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain which parameter to use, what a valid Jira key shape is, how unrelated parameters are treated, or what the response 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 parameters are individually documented and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning and, importantly, never says which of the nine parameters is the Jira issue key, leaving the core semantic connection missing.

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 ('Check a Jira issue key shape') and the resource is clear enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, the input schema contains no parameter named 'key' or 'issue', so the description does not connect the stated purpose to any concrete input.

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 the many sibling shape-check tools, and it does not state which input should contain the Jira key. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or context hints beyond the tool name itself.

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 and it does disclose one important behavior: the body is discarded. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as response format, redirect handling, or error behavior; 'Body discarded' is useful but minimal.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the most important behavioral caveat. No filler words, though it is so compressed that a verb and a 'returns' clause would improve completeness without hurting 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?

For a simple status-check tool, the description plus the schema's parameter descriptions may be sufficient: pass an HTTPS URL and expect a status code. But with no output schema and seven parameters that are not all reconciled with the description, the agent still has to infer which parameter matters and what the returned representation 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?

All seven parameters have schema descriptions, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds only the 'public library docs' scope to the URL parameter and otherwise contributes nothing 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 concrete outcome: an HTTP status for a public library docs URL, with the body discarded. This is clearer than the name alone and sets a domain-specific scope, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish it from fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

The phrase 'public library docs URL' implies the intended input context, but the description never says when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as fetch-status or web-fetch, and it gives no exclusions or 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 bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that 'Values discarded,' which implies input values are ignored, but it does not clarify whether counting is top-level or recursive, whether the object is read from memory or parameters, or whether the tool has side effects. This is minimal behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

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: one short sentence with no filler or repetition. The core action is front-loaded. However, it is arguably too terse because it omits essential context about the target JSON object, which prevents it from earning 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?

Given 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not sufficient for reliable invocation. It does not explain which parameter(s) are relevant, what 'a JSON object' refers to, or what the count represents. The description would need at least one clarifying sentence about the input source or parameter mapping to be complete.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are disconnected from the tool's stated purpose. For example, the 'json' parameter is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check,' not as the object whose keys should be counted. The tool description does not bridge this gap, so an agent cannot determine from the schema which parameter to use for the counting operation.

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 action and resource: 'Count keys in a JSON object.' However, it does not identify which JSON object is meant or how it is supplied, and the tool name's 'memory' prefix is never explained. Among siblings it is distinguishable because no other tool counts keys, but the ambiguity about the target object keeps it from being fully clear.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no explanation of which input to provide. The 9 optional parameters are all listed as optional with no indication of which one contains the JSON object to count. The description provides no context for choosing this tool over validate-json or other 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: URL query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not state whether the tool makes network requests, whether it has side effects, or how the many non-URL schema parameters are treated beyond what the schema already says.

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 sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and follows with a useful caveat. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and multiple sibling URL tools, this sparse description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It does not identify 'url' as the operative parameter, does not clarify that most other parameters are discarded, and leaves the output shape and side-effect profile underspecified.

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 some context by clarifying that the URL's query/fragment are not included in the result, but it does not explain parameter relationships or provide usage details. The potential clash between the 'query' schema parameter and the URL query mentioned in the description adds 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 clearly states a specific operation and result: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and adds a key transformation ('Query and fragment are dropped'). It is easy for an agent to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling URL tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling URL-related tools. The statement about dropping query/fragment implies one use case, but no alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned. An agent selecting among normalize-url, browser-url-ok, fetch-status, and domain-shape gets no help.

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

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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'No browser is launched,' which is a useful trait but far from sufficient. The description omits what the tool actually does with non-URL parameters, whether it performs network requests, what it returns, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to meet it.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It front-loads the URL check but entirely omits the other eight parameters and any operational details, making it insufficient for 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?

Given nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it handles each input, or why the extra parameters exist. An agent cannot infer correct usage 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?

The schema has 100% parameter coverage, but the descriptions are generic and do not explain how each parameter relates to the tool's purpose. The tool description adds no clarity; for instance, 'city' and 'zone' appear unrelated to URL checking. The description fails to compensate for the lack of semantic cohesion among the nine parameters.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('check whether a URL can be opened'), but it is misleading because the schema includes nine parameters, most of which are not URLs (e.g., city, json, path). It does not clarify what 'can be opened' means or distinguish this 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without direction on selecting it over similar 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Query discarded', which implies no persistence, but does not disclose that all other parameters are ignored, that the tool is read-only, or that it returns a simple character count. The schema descriptions for each parameter mention 'discarded', but that is in the schema, not the tool description. The behavioral detail is minimal and incomplete.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence. While it lacks necessary detail for completeness, that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue. As far as conciseness goes, it 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify that only the 'query' parameter is relevant, nor does it specify the return value (presumably an integer length). An agent might mistakenly pass any of the other parameters, and the lack of an output schema means the return format is unknown. The description does not provide enough context for reliable 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% – every parameter has a clear description in the input schema. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but since the schema already fully documents them, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not help select which parameter to use, but the schema handles that.

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

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

The description states a specific action – 'Count characters in a search query' – which matches the tool name and implies a length check. However, it does not specify that only the 'query' parameter is used, given the schema contains 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.). It also doesn't differentiate from sibling shape-check tools like domain-shape or figma-url-shape, which similarly validate inputs.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about selecting this tool over other length-checking or shape-checking tools, no mention of exclusions, and no indication of what kind of inputs it is appropriate for.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur (e.g., discarding inputs), what the output format is, or how the parameters influence the result. The description is nearly empty of behavioral content, making it opaque to the agent.

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 under-specified. It provides almost no actionable information, and the brevity is not a strength because it fails to communicate essential usage or behavior. The description is not structured to front-load critical details; it is simply too minimal to be useful.

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 grossly incomplete. An agent has no idea what the tool does, what it returns, or when to use it. The description offers virtually no context to support correct invocation or interpretation of results.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter comments, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how the parameters are used or related to status codes, but the schema already documents each parameter adequately. No value is added beyond the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states the tool is a 'catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which only restates the name and does not explain what the tool actually does with the nine provided parameters. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch, and gives no indication that it evaluates inputs to produce a status code.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, contexts, or exclusions, and the sibling list includes many tools that could overlap (fetch-status, web-fetch, validate-json). An agent would have to infer usage from the parameter names 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 behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the non-obvious behavior that the prompt is discarded and that a template is returned, which suggests a fixed, side-effect-free operation. However, it does not describe the template contents or explicitly state that all parameters are ignored.

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. It front-loads the main behavior and then immediately states the important discard warning, so 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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is somewhat thin. It does not specify the template's shape or content, nor does it confirm whether all inputs are ignored. The 100% schema descriptions reduce risk, but an agent is still left to infer the exact return format.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a meaningful per-field description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics beyond saying that the prompt is discarded, which keeps this at the baseline score of 3.

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: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It also adds a key qualifier, 'Prompt discarded,' which signals that this tool does not process a user's prompt. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, 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?

The purpose implies it should be used when a three-step thinking structure is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. The 'Prompt discarded' note is a warning, not a routing rule.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the function and gives no hint about side effects, network access, or that most of the 9 schema parameters are irrelevant to the timezone operation. The schema's many unrelated parameters are unexplained and could mislead.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place and is appropriately sized for the core function.

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 (none required) and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain that only 'zone' matters, nor what happens if other parameters are passed. The agent cannot reliably know how to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only implies the 'zone' parameter via 'named IANA timezone'. It fails to clarify that the other 8 parameters are discarded or unrelated, leaving the agent without guidance on which parameters to supply.

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

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

The description states a specific verb+resource: returns the current time for a named IANA timezone. It is clear and distinguishes from siblings like 'utc-time' (UTC) and 'iana-zones' (list of zones), though it does not explicitly name them.

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 vs alternatives. It does not mention that 'utc-time' should be used for UTC or that 'iana-zones' lists available zones. The agent must 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, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, and 'Current UTC timestamp' only names the return value. It does not state that all inputs are ignored, that the call has no side effects, or what output format to expect.

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 short for a trivial action, though it could have added a brief note about the unused parameters without becoming verbose.

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

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

Given nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition leaves important questions unanswered, such as why the parameters exist and what the timestamp format is. The tool is minimally callable but not complete for an agent trying to use it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter description explicitly notes how it is handled, e.g., 'discarded after the shape check' or 'no disk access'. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the high-coverage 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 the tool's output as a current UTC timestamp, which is clear and specific despite missing an explicit verb. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'timezone' tool, but the 'UTC' scope provides some differentiation.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'timezone' or other siblings. The schema implies all parameters are discarded, but the description itself gives no usage context, 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 only behavioral disclosure is that the body is discarded, which is useful privacy context. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does not mention return semantics, error behavior, or side effects beyond discarding the body, leaving a meaningful 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the discard note is a useful behavioral detail that 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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It does not state what the tool returns, which parameter(s) to pass, or how failure is signaled, so an agent is left guessing.

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 even without extra parameter explanation in the description. The description adds no specific parameter insight and actually introduces ambiguity by referring to 'a body' while the schema exposes nine unrelated optional fields, especially 'json'.

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 ('check') and object ('a body'), and the tool name reinforces that JSON validity is the concern. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling shape/validation tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

The intended use is implied: call this when you need to check whether something is valid JSON. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no prerequisites, and no explanation of what 'a body' means in practice, especially with 25 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions the Open-Meteo external service but does not disclose whether this is a safe read-only operation, how failures are surfaced, what output shape to expect, or why several input parameters are described as discarded. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler: 'Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo.' It efficiently communicates the core 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?

Given the messy multi-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not clarify parameter selection, output format, error behavior, or the expected temperature unit.

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 contains many unrelated parameters (ref, url, feed, host, json, path) and a required field 'test-default-value' that is not defined in properties. The description does not clarify that only 'city' matters and the rest should be ignored. While each property has a schema description, the confusing and contradictory schema undermines parameter semantics, and the description adds no rescue.

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 concrete outcome: 'Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo.' It names the verb/result (current temperature), the target (city), and the data source (Open-Meteo), which distinguishes it from vague sibling 'hint' tools like geo-hint or lib-docs-hint. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the weather-specific output is enough for basic purpose 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 instead of alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. It also fails to tell the agent that, despite many schema fields, only 'city' is relevant. With many sibling '-hint' tools, this is a real 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the body is discarded, which is useful, and restricts to public URLs. However, it fails to mention any other behaviors: whether it follows redirects, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with non-public URLs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 a single sentence with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for such a simple operation. However, it sacrifices necessary context for brevity, which prevents a 5.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description only mentions URL and body. It does not describe the return format (beyond status and content type) or explain how the other eight parameters are used. For a tool with this parameter count, the description is severely incomplete; an agent cannot infer correct usage beyond the simplest case.

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 clear description, including which are discarded. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify which parameter is primary (presumably url) or how multiple parameters interact. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: retrieving HTTP status and content type for a public URL, with a note that the body is discarded. This is unambiguous about the core function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which could also fetch status, so it misses the differentiator requirement for 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (fetch-status, browser-url-ok, normalize-url, etc.). The description implies it is for quick status checks but does not state exclusions or alternatives. An agent is left to guess which of several similar tools fits, especially since the description does not mention edge cases like redirects, timeouts, or non-public URLs.

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 trait that the title is discarded, but it does not disclose whether this is a remote network call, a local shape check, whether it is read-only, or what happens on failure. The provided disclosure is too thin for safe autonomous invocation.

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. The core action is front-loaded, and the disposal note is a useful addition. It is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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

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

This tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter mapping in the description. A caller cannot determine which argument to supply, what the return value means, whether network access occurs, or how to interpret failure. The description is far too incomplete for correct invocation.

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

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

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the descriptions are generic and unrelated to Wikipedia titles. More importantly, the description never identifies which of the nine optional parameters represents the title, and none of the parameter names is 'title'. This makes it impossible for an agent to know what value 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 names a specific action and resource: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' This is reasonably clear and not a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling 'ok'/'shape' tools, and 'exists' is ambiguous between a live lookup and a format/shape validation.

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 such as browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or file-path-ok. There is no stated context, prerequisite, or exclusion, so an agent must guess 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.