Europe/Berlin clock

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions that page content is not stored. It does not disclose whether the tool performs network requests, follows redirects, or has rate limits, nor does it explain why json and zone parameters appear in the schema.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary function, which is good. However, the inclusion of the negative statement 'Page content is not stored' adds some context but leaves out critical details about the odd parameters, making it feel incomplete rather than efficiently minimal.

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 description is insufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke it. It lacks information about output structure, when to use it compared to siblings, and why unrelated parameters exist, making the tool's behavior and intended use 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?

Although every parameter has a description, the descriptions do not align with the stated purpose. The url description mentions 'normalize or cite,' but json and zone appear to belong to other tools (validate-json and timezone), making their role in this tool completely unclear.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which is a specific outcome. However, the tool name 'citation' is misleading, and the parameter list includes unrelated fields like json and zone, creating confusion about the actual 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as normalize-url or validate-json. It does not explain how the 'citation' tool differs from these alternatives, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

The note 'No identifiers are retained' provides some transparency about data handling, but it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or what happens to the input data beyond classification.

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, with two short sentences that are easy to read and do not waste words.

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

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

The description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly. It does not specify the expected input format, the output structure, or the meaning of the classification result, leaving the tool's functionality 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 description does not explain how the parameters (url, host, json, zone) influence the classification. The schema descriptions appear generic and are likely copied from other tools, so they do not add meaningful context for this tool.

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

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

The description states it 'shows how this request is classified' but does not specify what classification is performed or what criteria are used. It lacks specificity to distinguish it from sibling tools like validate-json or normalize-url.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions that would make it the appropriate choice.

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

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait — that it performs no WHOIS or data lookup — which is a useful negative constraint. However, it does not mention the output format, error behavior, or whether it normalizes the hostname before splitting, and the mismatched parameters further obscure actual 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, compact sentence with a clear verb and object, making it easy to parse. The trailing 'or data' is slightly awkward, but the overall structure is appropriately concise.

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

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

Given the low complexity of a hostname split, the description omits key context: which parameter to supply, the labeling scheme (e.g., split on dots), and the output shape. The severe parameter mismatch makes the tool incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional documentation.

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?

Three of the four parameters are clearly mismatched: 'url' says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'json' says 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', and 'zone' says 'IANA timezone name' — these belong to sibling tools (normalize-url, validate-json, timezone). Only 'host' (Public hostname) aligns with the stated purpose of splitting a hostname, making the parameter set actively misleading.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Split' and the resource 'a hostname into labels', and the negation 'without WHOIS or data' distinguishes it from lookup-based sibling tools like inspect-robots. The phrasing 'or data' is slightly vague, but the core operation 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or inspect-robots. It also fails to indicate which parameter is the primary input, leaving the agent to guess between 'host' and 'url'.

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 no behavioral details such as side effects, return format, or error handling. With no annotations provided, the tool's runtime 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 short and simple, but it omits essential information. Conciseness is not valuable when the content is too vague to be useful; the structure itself provides no additional clarity.

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 drastically incomplete for a tool with four unspecified parameters. It fails to explain what inputs are expected, how they relate to timezone names, what output is produced, or any operational context, leaving the agent unable to use the tool effectively.

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

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

Although the schema documents all four parameters, the descriptions are generic and unrelated to the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'url' and 'host' are described as normalization/citation targets, while 'json' implies validation, none of which align with 'IANA timezone names'. The schema adds no meaningful semantics to clarify 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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase rather than an action, and it does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., list, validate, convert). It offers no distinction from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'tz-europe-berlin', making the purpose ambiguous.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of appropriate contexts or prerequisites. The phrase 'for clock calls' is too vague to serve as useful usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'public' and 'group counts only,' but does not disclose network behavior, error handling if robots.txt is missing, redirects, rate limits, or whether any state changes occur. For a network-fetching tool 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, target, and output shape efficiently, earning its place without redundancy.

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

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

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and four optional parameters, yet the description only provides a one-line summary. It omits how parameters relate to the fetch, what 'group counts' means, failure behavior, and any constraints on the URL or host. This is insufficient 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%, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter guidance. However, the description adds no mapping between its purpose and the four parameters; notably, 'json' and 'zone' appear unrelated to robots.txt inspection, and the description does not clarify which parameters are 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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a concrete resource ('public robots.txt'), and the exact output ('group counts only'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, none of which mention robots.txt.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent is left to infer that it should be used for robots.txt inspection, but nothing explicitly routes around siblings or states when not to use it.

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

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

The description discloses that query and fragment are dropped, but it does not explain how the host, json, or zone parameters affect behavior. With no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

The text is brief and front-loaded with the primary action. However, the brevity omits necessary parameter 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 description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters, only addressing URL behavior and ignoring json, host, and zone. No output schema is provided, so expected results are not fully specified.

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?

Parameter descriptions are present but inconsistent with the stated purpose: url mentions 'cite', while json and zone seem unrelated to URL normalization. They do not clarify how each parameter is used.

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: returning origin, host, and path for a URL. However, the parameter list includes host, json, and zone, which are not explained in the purpose, 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like validate-json or timezone. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions.

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 does not disclose what operations the tool performs on the input parameters. Since no annotations are provided, the tool's behavior is entirely opaque, especially given the mismatched parameter descriptions.

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, but it fails to convey any useful information beyond a vague topic. It is not structured to highlight the tool's purpose or usage, making it too terse to be helpful.

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

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

The tool lacks an output schema and provides no explanation of how parameters relate to the stated purpose. The description is severely incomplete for an agent to understand what the tool does or what it returns.

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

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

The parameter descriptions (url, host, json, zone) are clearly borrowed from other tools (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json, timezone) and do not align with a catalog of HTTP status codes. This makes the parameter meanings confusing and misleading.

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

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

The description states it is a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' but this is a noun phrase rather than an action. It does not clarify what the tool actually does with the input parameters, making the purpose 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?

No guidance is given on when or how to use this tool. There is no mention of alternatives or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to guess its 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the purpose. It does not disclose what happens with an invalid zone, the return format, whether network access is needed, side effects, or error behavior, leaving the agent with no behavioral guarantees.

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, front-loaded, free of filler, and easy to scan in one glance. Every word contributes to the purpose, which is exactly what the conciseness and structure dimension rewards.

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

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

For a tool with 4 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't state that `zone` is the primary/only relevant input, how to handle the other params, what the response looks like, or error behavior, leaving the agent uncertain at invocation time.

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 and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a small link between 'named IANA timezone' and the `zone` param, but it does not explain the presence or role of `url`, `host`, and `json`, which are alongside `zone` and could easily mislead an agent.

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

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

The description 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' states a clear resource (current time) and scope (a named IANA zone), and it is distinguishable from some siblings like `utc-time` (UTC vs a named zone). It does not explicitly contrast with `tz-europe-berlin` or `iana-zones`, but the core purpose is 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and none of the sibling tools are referenced. With several releted siblings (`utc-time`, `iana-zones`, `tz-europe-berlin`), the agent is left to infer the intended use, and the description doesn't clarify which parameter to set.

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

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

No annotations are present and the description does not disclose side effects, read-only behavior, error behavior, or whether the extra url/host/json parameters are ignored. The tool's observable behavior is therefore not transparent.

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 and free of filler. It directly states the tool's core output and scope in six words.

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 not complete enough given the mismatched schema: it omits the expected return format, does not clarify why unrelated parameters exist, and offers no comparison to sibling timezone tools. It leaves important context for an agent to infer.

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 every parameter has a schema description, most are mismatched with the tool purpose: url, host, and json appear to come from other tools. Only zone is plausibly relevant, and the description does not explain the role of the other 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 identifies a specific resource (Europe/Berlin) and clearly states the tool returns the current local time. However, it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb, and the schema includes unrelated parameters that slightly muddy 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?

The description gives no indication of when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools such as timezone, utc-time, or validate-json. There are no usage conditions or alternative selection criteria provided.

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

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

There are no annotations and the description does not disclose whether the listed input parameters (url, host, json, zone) are ignored or relevant. The tool's behavior regarding parameters and return format 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 very short, but it sacrifices essential information about parameters and output format. It is concise but not appropriately sized for the tool's actual interface.

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 omits the output format (e.g., ISO 8601), parameter handling, and any relationship to sibling timezone tools. Given the misleading input schema, this is far from complete.

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

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

The input schema contains four parameters with descriptions entirely unrelated to UTC time (e.g., url, host, json, zone). The tool description provides no explanation for why these parameters exist or how they affect the output.

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

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

The description 'Current UTC timestamp' names the output but uses no verb and doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling timezone tools like timezone or tz-europe-berlin. The purpose is partially clear but lacks resource/action framing.

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

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

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the sibling timezone tools. The description does not mention that this tool is for UTC-only needs or when a different timezone tool would be 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, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, permissions, or output behavior. It only notes that the body is discarded, but does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, or any other behavioral implications. The schema mismatch compounds the opacity.

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 direct, with no unnecessary words. However, it omits essential context due to brevity.

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

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

The description is far from complete for an agent to invoke reliably: it lacks return value semantics, required parameter relationships, and clarification of the body/schema mismatch. The sibling tool list suggests a broader context, but no integration is provided.

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?

Parameter descriptions are present but mostly inconsistent with the JSON-validation purpose: url, host, and zone descriptions relate to other tool domains, while only json matches the stated functionality. The schema does not explain how url, host, and zone should be used in validation.

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 body is valid JSON', but the input schema contains no body parameter, only url, host, json, and zone. This mismatch makes the intended resource unclear and potentially misleading.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many siblings like normalize-url, timezone, or status-catalog. The description's reference to a 'body' that does not appear in the schema further confuses appropriate usage.

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