Europe/Copenhagen clock

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that task text is discarded and that it returns CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, and remote MCP hops. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, network requirements, error behavior, or what happens with the 9 input parameters. The coverage is thin for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the behavioral note about task text is efficient. Every word earns its place.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how the parameters relate to the gateway search, what a 'skill file' is, or what constitutes a successful vs failed call. The agent would need to infer too much.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have tied the parameters to the search logic.

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: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)' and lists what it returns. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling tools, though the name and description are specific enough to distinguish from the many shape/status 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no idea why to pick this over a sibling like 'web-fetch' or 'fetch-status'.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no browser is launched and the input schema mentions several parameters being 'discarded,' which hints at no side effects. But it does not explain whether a network request is made, what happens for unreachable URLs, or what the 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful distinction. It wastes no words, though the second sentence could have been connected to more specific guidance about output or 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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with seven schema properties, no required-field list, no output schema, and no annotations. An agent cannot tell which parameter to supply, whether the tool returns a boolean or something else, or how 'ok' is determined.

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

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

The input schema already provides individual descriptions for all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and only references URLs, leaving the role of the other six parameters unexplained at the top level.

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

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

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened' and adds a meaningful distinction with 'No browser is launched,' which separates it from browser-driven tools like playwright-url-ok. It stops short of a 5 because 'can be opened' is ambiguous about whether this means HTTP reachability, URL shape, or something else.

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

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

The phrase 'No browser is launched' implies this is a lightweight check rather than a full browser invocation, giving some situational context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over web-fetch, fetch-status, normalize-url, or playwright-url-ok.

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 burden. It only says 'Expression discarded' which is cryptic and does not explain the tool's overall behavior, side effects, or return value. It fails to disclose that the tool accepts multiple input types and discards them after checks, and it does not state what happens on invalid input.

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

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

The description is one sentence, which is concise, but it is so underspecified that it does not earn its place. It lacks essential information about the tool's purpose and parameters, making it an ineffective use of even that short length.

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, a complete description is essential. This one-sentence description provides almost no context: it does not explain the tool's overall function, what it returns, or how to choose parameters. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on 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 provides 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the description's focus on 'a+b style arithmetic' does not map to any of the parameters, which are named ref, url, city, etc. This mismatch actively misleads the agent about how to fill parameters, so the description adds no value and reduces clarity.

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 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic' which names a specific verb and resource, but it is misleading because the input schema contains 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) with no arithmetic operands. It also says 'Expression discarded', which contradicts the idea of evaluation. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'compatibility' or 'domain-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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent has no idea whether to call this for arithmetic, URL checking, or timezone validation.

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 states 'Page content is not stored,' which is a useful privacy note, but it does not disclose whether the tool makes network calls, is read-only, or how it handles the many other parameters. The description is too sparse to give a complete behavioral picture.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that states the core function and a key behavioral fact. There is no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the 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 tool has 9 optional parameters, no required ones, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It only explains the URL-related behavior and ignores the other parameters entirely, leaving the agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly when multiple inputs are possible. More detail about parameter interactions and expected output format would be needed.

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

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

The schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described (e.g., 'ref' is 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'URL' but does not explicitly link it to the 'url' parameter. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have clarified which parameter is primary.

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: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This clearly identifies the primary resource and output, and it is distinct from sibling tools like normalize-url or fetch-status. However, it does not mention the other eight optional parameters, so the full scope is unclear, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or normalize-url. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving 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 provided, the description carries the burden, and it does add one meaningful behavioral trait: 'No identifiers are retained,' which signals privacy-safe, non-persistent behavior. However, it does not say whether the tool is read-only, what side effects may occur, what the output will be, or how the classification is computed, leaving significant gaps.

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

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

The description is brief, front-loaded, and has no filler; both sentences carry meaning. However, for a tool with a large schema and no output schema, this is under-sized and lacks needed structure, so it is concise at the expense of completeness rather than appropriately sized.

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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain what the classification result looks like and how to invoke it correctly. It does neither, nor does it explain the request model or the meaning of the many optional parameters in aggregate. The definition is not sufficient for an agent to call this tool confidently.

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

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

Every schema parameter already has its own description, many with discard behavior, so schema coverage is essentially complete. The tool description itself adds nothing about parameters, but because the schema documents them well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('Show how this request is classified') and a subject ('this request'), but it never defines what 'classified' means, what categories or dimensions are used, or how 'compatibility' relates to the classification. It is more than a tautology but remains vague and does not differentiate it from specialized sibling shape-checkers.

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 like validate-json, domain-shape, or other sibling tools. The phrase 'this request' implies a context, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or the kind of request that should be routed here.

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 disclose one meaningful boundary: the tool does not retrieve WHOIS or ownership data, implying a local parsing operation. However, it does not state whether it mutates anything, how it handles invalid hostnames, or what exactly 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 short sentence with no filler and the key operation is front-loaded. It could arguably go further to clarify parameter usage, but as a concise definition it is appropriately sized 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 input schema is quite rich, including ref, url, city, feed, json, path, and host, but each parameter already has a description explaining whether it is discarded. The description itself describes the output concept ('labels') but does not specify the exact return structure or edge-case behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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

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

The input schema covers all eight parameters with descriptive text, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself mentions no parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explicitly mapping 'hostname' to the host parameter, but the schema's 'Public hostname' description is sufficient.

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: 'Split a hostname into labels.' The negative clause, 'without WHOIS or ownership data,' adds clear scope and distinguishes this from any lookup-style or ownership-bearing domain tools. This is more than a vague restatement of the tool name.

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 such as github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape, or normalize-url. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' hints at what it avoids, but it does not name any alternative or condition under which the agent should prefer another tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the operation is a read-only HEAD request returning only status, which is helpful, but it does not address redirects, errors, timeouts, authentication boundaries, or the tool's handling of the many non-URL parameters.

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

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

A single sentence conveys the core action and output with no wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 seven heterogeneous parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this short description is under-specified. It does not explain which parameter(s) to use, what the status output looks like, or how the non-URL parameters relate to the stated HEAD-a-URL behavior.

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

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

The input schema describes seven parameters with individual descriptions, so high schema coverage supports a baseline of 3. However, the description adds no parameter-level meaning and its 'public URL' framing misleads with the non-URL parameters like json, path, city, and ref.

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 specific resource (a public URL), and the output (status only). This is clear and useful, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling URL-checking tools such as browser-url-ok or web-fetch.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of which sibling should be chosen for content retrieval or browser-level checks.

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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses only that the path is discarded. It doesn't state what happens on success or failure, whether the tool makes any network calls, whether it validates or merely extracts, or what a valid/invalid Figma URL 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler words. The description is appropriately compact for what it states, though the brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than refined 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?

A 9-parameter tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and only two sentences of description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameter to supply, what output to expect, how parameters interrelate, or why the schema contains parameters that appear to belong to other tools entirely (weather, timezone, RSS feeds).

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; its sole behavioral note ('Path discarded') doesn't map cleanly to any of the 9 parameters. The schema descriptions themselves are generic ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'City name for a public weather hint'), and the description doesn't help an agent understand why 8 of 9 params exist on a tool named 'figma-url-shape'.

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 (parse) and resource (Figma file URL), and the 'Path discarded' note hints at scope. However, it's extremely terse and the schema presents 9 unrelated optional parameters (city, feed, json, zone, query, etc.) that have no apparent connection to Figma URL parsing, creating confusion about the tool's true 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (normalize-url, browser-url-ok, domain-shape, etc.). The description provides no context for selection, no exclusions, and no mention of what the 'shape check' is or when it's 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does contribute one genuinely non-obvious trait: 'No disk access' tells the agent the call is side-effect-free at the filesystem level. However, it never discloses the result format (boolean vs. verdict object), what 'safe' means concretely, or how the out-of-scope schema parameters relate to the check, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

Eight words in two sentences: purpose first, key behavioral constraint second, zero filler. Every token earns its place, and the most decision-relevant fact ('No disk access') is immediately visible.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a seven-parameter envelope, the definition is too thin: it omits return semantics, the operational definition of 'safe', and any clarification that only 'path' is meaningful among the schema parameters. The unexplained presence of unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json) in the schema compounds the incompleteness.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all seven parameters individually documented, so the baseline of 3 applies and the description is not required to repeat them. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the implicit 'path' focus, and the schema's own 'path: File path to check' is adequate; the anomaly that city/feed/json/ref appear unrelated to a path check is a schema-level concern rather than a description gap.

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 path looks safe,' and the qualifier 'No disk access' clarifies this is a pure shape-level predicate rather than a filesystem-existence check. It stops short of 5 because 'safe' is never defined (path traversal? absolute paths? special characters?), and none of the sibling 'ok-style' predicates (wiki-title-ok, browser-url-ok) are explicitly differentiated.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling predicates that overlap in intent. 'No disk access' implies a boundary but does not tell the agent when the shape check is the right choice or what to use instead when actual filesystem access is needed.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns latitude and longitude via Open-Meteo, but does not mention side effects, data handling, what parameters are used, or what happens to the many other parameters. The schema descriptions mention discarding values, but those are in the schema, not the description.

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

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

The description is a single sentence and technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It omits critical information about how the tool works, leaving the agent to infer from the confusing schema. Conciseness is not valuable when it sacrifices necessary 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?

The tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no context about what the tool actually does with these parameters, what inputs are expected, or what the return format is. This is completely inadequate for an agent to use the 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, but the tool description adds no semantic linkage between the parameters and the stated purpose. The parameters appear to be a grab-bag of unrelated fields (git ref, URL, city, feed, host, JSON, path, zone, query) with no indication of which one selects the 'place' for the coordinate lookup. The description fails to compensate for the schema's 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 states a specific output (latitude and longitude) and a data source (Open-Meteo), which gives a clear core purpose. However, it does not explain how the place is specified, and the input schema contains nine unrelated optional parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with no clear mapping to the stated purpose. It also fails to differentiate from siblings like weather-hint or timezone.

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 offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no way to decide between geo-hint and weather-hint or timezone based on the 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Parse' implies a read-only, local operation, which is helpful, but the description does not state what happens with invalid URLs, whether other parameters are ignored, or whether any normalization occurs. This is acceptable 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and 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?

With nine optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully guide an agent. It does not clarify which parameter should be populated, what the return shape looks like, or why the other parameters are present. An agent could reasonably be uncertain whether to pass url, ref, or another field.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds that the relevant input is a GitHub URL and the output is owner/repo, but it does not explicitly map this to the 'url' parameter or explain why eight unrelated optional parameters exist. The schema carries most of the parameter meaning.

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 ('parse') and resource ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'), which makes the tool's core purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly discuss sibling shape tools, but the GitHub-specific scope helps differentiate it from tools like figma-url-shape or jira-key-shape.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, domain-shape, or the other shape tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that titles are discarded, which is useful, and 'current' implies a live read rather than a cached or historical count. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether network access is involved, or what the exact return value 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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the secondary behavioral note about titles discarded is concise and relevant.

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

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

The tool is simple and the schema is complete for parameters, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should more explicitly state that the tool returns only a count and can be invoked with no arguments. The current description is adequate but leaves the return format and parameter irrelevance to inference.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds little parameter-specific meaning; 'Titles discarded' vaguely relates to ignoring title-like input, but none of the nine schema properties are directly tied to Hacker News, and the description does not clarify which (if any) parameters matter. The schema already handles this by marking all parameters optional and describing their discarded behavior.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling count tools like memory-key-count and search-query-len by naming the Hacker News resource explicitly.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a current Hacker News front-page story count is needed. 'Titles discarded' also signals a limitation, implying that this tool is not appropriate if titles or story details are required, though it does not name an alternative.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it states no behavior: no return format, no side effects, no explanation of what happens with the nine optional inputs. The phrase is a noun phrase rather than a behavioral disclosure.

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

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

It is brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. A single noun phrase is not appropriately sized for a tool with nine optional parameters and no annotations.

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

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

With no output schema, no annotations, and nine optional parameters, the description leaves almost everything unexplained. An agent cannot tell what the tool returns, how it uses any of the parameters, or how it fits with the sibling tools beyond a vague 'clock calls' hint.

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 every parameter, meeting the baseline. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 resource (common IANA timezone names) and a purpose (clock calls), so it is not a tautology. But it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'returns', leaving the exact operation to inference.

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?

'For clock calls' gives an implied usage context, likely pointing at sibling clock-related tools like timezone or utc-time. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a public read-only fetch and that it deliberately returns only group counts, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, redirects, missing robots.txt, or that most of the parameters are ignored or 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 or redundant detail. It states the action, the resource, and the output constraint efficiently.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to reliably guide a call. It does not explain which parameter is the robots.txt URL/host, what the output format looks like, or how the many 'discarded' parameters relate to the operation. 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. Each parameter has a description, but the tool description does not indicate which parameter actually supplies the robots.txt target; with nine optional parameters, it is ambiguous whether to use 'host' or 'url'. The schema descriptions help, but they do not connect any parameter to the robots.txt fetching 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 names a specific action ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('public robots.txt'), and constrains the output ('group counts only'). This clearly communicates what the tool does and differentiates it from generic fetch tools like web-fetch 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as web-fetch, normalize-url, or domain-shape. There are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and one-line description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, and limitations. It only states 'Key discarded,' which is trivial and does not address the tool's actual behavior with the 9 parameters. The description does not disclose what happens to inputs, whether network/disk access occurs, or any error conditions. It is also inconsistent with the schema, suggesting the description may be for a different 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 short (one sentence), which would be acceptable for a simple tool, but with 9 parameters and no other context, it is under-specified. It does not front-load key information about parameter selection or behavior. The brevity is not elegant conciseness; it is inadequate.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, which parameters are relevant to the Jira key check, what 'shape' validation entails, or how the other parameters (city, feed, host, etc.) fit in. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the provided description.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. However, the tool description does not map any parameter to the 'Jira key' concept; it adds no semantic linkage. The parameter descriptions themselves are generic (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint') and seem unrelated to the stated purpose. The description fails to clarify which parameter (if any) is the Jira key or how the parameters are used in the check.

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 a Jira issue key shape'), but the input schema contains 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with no obvious mapping to a Jira key. This mismatch makes the actual purpose unclear and potentially misleading. It is not a tautology, but the resource (Jira key) is not reflected in any parameter.

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 its many siblings (e.g., domain-shape, github-repo-shape, validate-json). There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent has no basis to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does usefully state that the body is discarded and that the result is an HTTP status, implying a network check. However, it does not disclose whether the check is read-only, what happens on errors or redirects, or whether any rate limits or auth requirements exist.

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, front-loaded with the primary outcome and no filler. The phrase 'Body discarded' is concise but slightly cryptic, and the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with nine optional parameters.

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

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

Given nine optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many URL-related sibling tools, this description is not sufficient. It fails to explain which parameter to pass, what the response format looks like, or how this tool differs from fetch-status and web-fetch.

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 specify that only the 'url' parameter is relevant, and the schema's 'url' description ('normalize or cite') does not match the tool's stated status-check purpose, leaving ambiguity about how to populate the call. The individual schema descriptions are detailed, but the overall mapping is 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 indicates that the tool reports an HTTP status for a library docs URL and that the response body is discarded, so an agent can identify the primary action and resource. It does not explain how it differs from sibling URL-status tools such as fetch-status or web-fetch, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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

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

The description offers a narrow context ('public library docs URL') but gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusion criteria, and no mention that the other eight input parameters are irrelevant. An agent is left to infer usage from the name and the URL mention.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only mentions 'Values discarded', but does not explain whether JSON validation occurs, what happens with invalid JSON, whether only top-level keys are counted, or the output format. It is too sparse to give an agent confidence in the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is very concise—two short sentences with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core function. However, it is perhaps too terse, omitting critical context like parameter usage, which reduces its effectiveness.

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 (9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between the parameters and the counting operation, nor does it describe the return value. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, they are mismatched with the tool's purpose. For example, the 'json' parameter is described as 'JSON text to validate', which conflicts with the tool's function of counting keys. The tool description does not clarify which parameter holds the JSON input, so the meaning of parameters remains 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 the verb 'Count' and the resource 'keys in a JSON object', which is a specific and useful purpose. However, it does not specify which input parameter provides the JSON, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json, so the clarity is slightly diminished.

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 exclusions, prerequisites, or how it differs from similar tools such as validate-json. An agent has no context to choose this tool over siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is valuable. However, it does not address the many unrelated parameters in the schema (city, feed, json, etc.) or state that they are ignored, leaving ambiguity about what happens when those are supplied.

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

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

The description is two sentences with no filler. The main output is front-loaded and the key behavioral detail (query and fragment dropped) is stated immediately. 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?

The description is sufficient for the core URL-normalization use case, but the schema lists seven parameters with no indication of which are necessary or how they interact. The description does not mention that most parameters are discarded, leaving the overall input contract unclear despite schema-level annotations.

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 description coverage is high—all seven parameters have individual descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the core URL behavior and doesn't clarify which parameters are relevant or required. With schema already documenting each parameter, a 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 clearly states the specific action ('Return origin, host, and path for a URL') and a key behavior (query and fragment dropped). It is obviously about URL normalization, not a vague restatement of the name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling URL-focused tools like domain-shape or figma-url-shape, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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

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

The description implies the tool should be used when origin, host, and path are needed from a URL, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools or when not to use it. There are no alternatives mentioned, so the context is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that no browser is launched, but does not explain what 'check whether a URL can be opened' entails (e.g., network request, DNS lookup, status code), what the return value is, or how the many parameters affect the check. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, using two short sentences with no wasted words. The key caveat ('No browser is launched') is front-loaded and directly relevant to distinguishing from sibling tools.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too minimal to explain how these parameters are used, what constitutes a 'successful' check, or what output the agent can expect. It does not mention return values, error cases, or the relationship between the parameters and the check. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description in the schema (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond that. Since the schema already documents parameters thoroughly, 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened' with the explicit caveat 'No browser is launched.' This distinguishes it from the sibling 'browser-url-ok' which likely involves a browser, so an agent can tell them apart without further context.

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. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or mention sibling tools like browser-url-ok. The 'No browser is launched' hint implies a distinction but doesn't explicitly state when to choose it over others.

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. It discloses that the query is discarded, which is helpful, but it doesn't mention the output format (e.g., returns a number), whether it's read-only, or why the schema contains 8 other parameters that appear unrelated. This lack of explanation could confuse an 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 efficient sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action. However, it is so brief that it omits necessary context, which is penalized in other dimensions; for structure alone, it's 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?

The tool has 9 parameters but only one (query) is used for the described purpose. The description doesn't explain why the others exist or how they relate. There's no output schema, and the return value is not stated. For a simple tool, this is still incomplete given the cluttered schema and lack of output information.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The tool description doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond the schema—it only implies the 'query' parameter matters, but that's already clear. It adds no extra detail about parameter usage or relationships.

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 (count characters) and the resource (a search query), which is specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like memory-key-count or wiki-title-ok, and the phrase 'search query' is a bit vague without specifying the exact parameter. Still, it's a distinct 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says what it does, not the context or criteria for selection. An agent gets no help deciding between this and other counting 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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or how it handles inputs. The parameter schema suggests values are 'discarded', which is a behavioral trait the description completely fails to mention.

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 fluff, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It lacks a clear structure or any functional verb. This is more akin to an under-specification penalty than a praise of conciseness.

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

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

The tool has 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is just an eight-word noun phrase. An agent cannot understand why a catalog of HTTP status codes would take parameters like city, feed, or JSON text. The description is completely inadequate for safely selecting and invoking 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?

All 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema, so schema description coverage is 100%, which sets a baseline of 3. The tool description itself adds no meaning beyond the schema. However, the schema parameter descriptions are individually clear, even though their connection to the tool's purpose is unexplained.

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, not a verb phrase, so it does not state what the tool actually does (e.g., 'returns' or 'lists'). It essentially restates the tool name with a small amount of detail ('common HTTP status codes'), which is close to a tautology. It does not differentiate from siblings like fetch-status, which might also relate to status codes.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any of its siblings. It does not mention alternative tools, conditions, or contexts. The description is purely a noun phrase with no actionable 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'Prompt discarded,' which indicates the input is ignored, and the schema further clarifies each parameter is discarded after a shape check. The description also states it returns a template, covering the core behavior. However, it does not mention whether the output is constant, whether there are side effects, or any other operational details beyond the basic return value. This is adequate but not rich.

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, consisting of two sentences with no redundant wording. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the behavioral note about discarding the prompt is efficiently placed in the second. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplary model of 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?

Despite having 9 parameters, the tool is conceptually simple, yet the description lacks essential context. It does not explain why the parameters exist if they are all discarded, nor does it describe the content or structure of the 'three-step thinking template.' An agent might be uncertain about what to pass and what to expect. Given the absence of an output schema and the minimal description, the tool is under-specified for practical use.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the 9 parameters having a clear description noting it is discarded. The tool description adds a general 'Prompt discarded' statement, but it does not provide any additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Per the calibration, with full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not exceed that 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 states a specific action: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose as providing a static template. It is not a tautology and distinguishes it from sibling tools like calc-eval or fetch-status. However, it does not elaborate on what the template contains or how it should be used, leaving some ambiguity about the exact nature of the output.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states the function without context on how it fits into a workflow or when an agent should choose it over other tools. The absence of any usage direction makes this dimension weak.

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 fails to mention that only the 'zone' parameter is used and that all other parameters are ignored, nor does it describe the output format (e.g., string, ISO timestamp). This is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to call 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 a single sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, given the complexity of the schema (9 parameters), it is under-specified and omits crucial clarification about parameter usage. It is concise but at the expense of necessary 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, most of which appear unrelated to timezones (e.g., ref, url, city, feed), and no output schema. The description does not explain the role of these parameters or the return value, leaving agents without enough context to call it correctly.

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

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

The schema already describes each parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning and does not clarify which parameters are actually used or required. It neither improves nor detracts from the schema's own descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns the current time for a specified IANA timezone. It distinguishes from siblings like utc-time (UTC) and iana-zones (list zones) by focusing on a named zone. However, it does not mention that the other parameters in the schema are irrelevant, which slightly muddies the purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time for UTC or iana-zones for listing zones. The description simply states functionality without any usage context 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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it reveals nothing: it does not state that all inputs are accepted and ignored, that no side effects occur, or that the parameter list is a shape-check artifact rather than meaningful configuration. The schema's per-parameter "discarded" notes hint at this, but the tool-level description should state the quirk plainly.

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 three-word sentence is maximally concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is under-specified relative to the tool's actual interface: for a tool carrying a 9-parameter schema with discard semantics, this brevity crosses from conciseness into incompleteness. It earns its place but is not appropriately sized for the surrounding complexity.

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

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

For a zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, a complete definition is easy: say it returns the UTC timestamp and all inputs are ignored. Instead, an agent must inspect all nine schema entries to infer the discard behavior and still cannot be certain whether zone or ref affect the result. The description leaves the tool's true contract 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. Each parameter has its own explanation (e.g., "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check"), which the description doesn't need to duplicate. However, the description does nothing to reconcile why a UTC-time tool accepts a weather city or a JSON payload, leaving a semantic gap that the schema alone cannot resolve.

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?

"Current UTC timestamp" clearly states the tool's function: return the current UTC time. It is a specific resource with a precise output, and the semantics distinguish it from the sibling tool "timezone," which implies zone handling or conversion. It is not a tautology and leaves little doubt about the core operation.

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

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like timezone, nor does it warn that all 9 parameters are optional and discarded. Given the confusingly broad input schema (url, city, feed, json, path, zone, query), an agent receives zero help deciding whether to pass anything or how this differs from sibling time/validation tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only notes that 'the body is discarded,' which is vague and does not clarify side effects, network access, or what happens with the other parameters. The schema mentions 'no disk access' for path, but that is in the schema, not the description.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it under-specifies. It lacks essential details about which parameter to use and what the output is. Being short is not the same as being well-structured; the sentence does not earn its place because it is too vague to be actionable.

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 parameters, none required, and no output schema. The description fails to explain the roles of the other parameters or how they relate to JSON validation. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full scope and invocation requirements.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it does not even reference the 'json' parameter. However, the schema itself provides adequate descriptions for each parameter, so the description does not need to 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 states a clear verb ('Check') and resource ('a body') but is ambiguous about which parameter holds the JSON. The 'body' is not mapped to the 'json' parameter explicitly, and the many unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) are not addressed, so the purpose is not fully distinct from other shape checkers.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like file-path-ok or domain-shape. The name implies JSON validation, but the description does not state the intended use case or conditions that would select it over alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only claims to return a temperature, without mentioning data freshness, rate limits, side effects, or the fact that many parameters are discarded. The schema notes several 'discarded' behaviors, but the description does not explain or acknowledge them.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and multiple apparent use cases. The structure is fine, but the content is so narrow that it fails to convey the actual scope.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the tool's actual behavior, how to use the various parameters, or what response to expect. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on this description alone.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. However, the description only references the city parameter and is inconsistent with the other 8 parameters, adding confusion rather than meaning. It fails to connect the schema to the stated purpose, so it does not compensate for the tool's complexity.

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 ('current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo'), but the input schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (URL, JSON, path, zone, query, etc.), suggesting a much broader purpose. This mismatch makes the purpose unclear and misleading, and it does not differentiate from sibling hint tools like geo-hint or search-query-len.

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 does not mention which parameters are relevant, when to call it, or what conditions select it. An agent has no idea which of the 9 parameters to supply or 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?

The description discloses only that the body is discarded. It does not mention network behavior, redirects, error handling, timeouts, read-only guarantees, or what happens when non-URL parameters are provided. With no annotations, this leaves important behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 succinct and front-loaded: 'HTTP status and content type for a public URL. Body discarded.' It contains no redundant wording, though it sacrifices completeness for 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?

With nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It only addresses URL fetching and body discard, leaving output format, error behavior, and parameter selection completely unexplained.

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 parameters have schema descriptions, but the tool description does not explain how they relate to fetching HTTP status/content type. For instance, url is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than to fetch, and parameters like zone and query appear entirely unrelated, creating a semantic mismatch between the tool purpose and 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 identifies a clear resource and outcome—HTTP status and content type for a public URL—and explicitly notes the body is discarded. However, it lacks a direct verb and is undermined by an input schema with nine unrelated optional parameters (e.g., zone, query, json), which makes the actual purpose ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or playwright-url-ok. There is also no instruction on which of the nine parameters to supply or how to disambiguate between them.

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

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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'Title discarded after the call,' which indicates the input is not persisted. However, with no annotations present, the description should also clarify whether the operation is read-only, makes network requests, or has any side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It is efficient and to the point. However, it is too brief to be considered excellent, as it omits crucial details, but for conciseness alone it is well-structured.

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's complexity (9 parameters, none required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is vastly incomplete. It fails to explain how the parameters relate to the purpose, what the tool returns, how to invoke it, or any side effects. An agent would be unable to correctly select or call this tool based solely on the description and schema.

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

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

The description does not connect any of the 9 parameters to its purpose. None of the parameter names or schema descriptions mention a Wikipedia title; parameters like 'url', 'city', 'feed', and 'path' seem unrelated to the stated function. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and in fact there is a severe mismatch between the stated purpose and the parameters, making it impossible to infer which parameter is the title.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: checking whether a Wikipedia title exists. The verb 'check' and the resource 'Wikipedia title' make the purpose explicit, and it is distinct from sibling checkers like file-path-ok or browser-url-ok by the resource type. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it gets a 4 rather than 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 alternatives. No mention of conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where it should or should not be used. The description simply states what it does, offering no selection advice.

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