Europe/London clock

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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is useful, but it does not mention that the tool likely makes an HTTP request, what happens on failure, whether redirects are followed, or any rate/usage implications. Since annotations are absent, the description carries full responsibility for side-effect transparency.

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

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

The description is very short and the one sentence earns its place, but it omits necessary context about parameters and return format. Conciseness is acceptable, though somewhat too minimal for a tool with a misleading input schema.

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

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

There is no output schema, yet the description does not specify the format of the returned host, scheme, and HTTP status. It also fails to address the extraneous parameters or explain error behavior, leaving an agent without enough information to confidently invoke 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?

Only the url parameter seems relevant to the described purpose, but the schema also includes host, json, and zone with generic descriptions that appear unrelated. The description does not clarify whether these parameters are ignored, optional, or meaningful, and it adds no explanation beyond the confusing schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools like normalize-url and status-catalog. However, it does not explicitly name the tool's purpose as 'citation' or explain what makes this different from simply normalizing a URL.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as normalize-url, status-catalog, or inspect-robots. It does not mention whether this tool should be preferred for citation workflows or what conditions make it the right 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 only behavioral disclosure is 'No identifiers are retained,' which hints at privacy but does not clarify whether the tool performs any side effects, modifies inputs, or is read-only. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it omits what the tool actually does with the inputs and what output it produces.

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

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

The description is very concise, consisting of a single sentence plus a short privacy note. It is well-structured and easy to read with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. The brevity is a strength, though it comes at the cost of 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?

Given the complexity of having four heterogeneous parameters (URL, host, JSON, timezone), the description is far from complete. It does not explain how these parameters are used, what classification logic is applied, what the output format is, or why the tool is named 'compatibility.' The agent would be unable to use this tool correctly based solely on the description.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, which meets the baseline score of 3. However, the descriptions like 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'JSON text to validate' appear borrowed from sibling tools and do not explain how these parameters contribute to the 'compatibility' classification. They add no meaning beyond the schema itself, so no bonus is given.

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

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

The description 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify what kind of classification is performed or what 'this request' refers to. The tool name 'compatibility' suggests a compatibility check, but the description never mentions compatibility or how the input parameters relate to it. It does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, which have specific purposes.

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 any of the sibling tools. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description gives no indication of the intended use case or scenario, 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation does not include WHOIS/ownership data, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not state whether this is read-only, what it returns (e.g., array of labels), or how it handles invalid inputs. The one-sentence description gives minimal transparency.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and a key exclusion. Efficient and to the point.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to cover the tool's full behavior. The heterogeneous parameter set (url, host, json, zone) suggests the tool may have multiple modes, yet the description only mentions hostname splitting. Important details like return format, error handling, and parameter usage are missing.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic and not aligned with the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'json' is described as 'discarded after the check' and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name', which are unrelated to splitting a hostname. The tool description does not explain how these parameters map to the tool's function, leaving the agent confused about which parameter to use.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Split a hostname into labels') and explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data, which distinguishes it from siblings like normalize-url. However, it doesn't clarify how the input parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to this purpose, so it's clear in intent but slightly ambiguous in scope.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for choosing among 11 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 present, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals nothing about side effects, return format, error handling, or the effect of the four input parameters. The tool's behavior is completely opaque.

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

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

The description is extremely brief, but brevity without substance is not effective. It lacks a clear subject-verb structure and reads more like a tagline than a functional description. It is front-loaded with the tool name variant but fails to convey actionable information.

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

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

The tool has a simple schema and no output schema, but the description is so vague that it does not enable an agent to understand the tool's role within the broader set of sibling tools. It does not explain what 'common IANA timezone names' are used for or how to invoke this tool correctly, leaving a critical gap in context.

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

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

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone), giving them some individual meaning. However, the tool description does not clarify how these parameters interact or which are expected or optional. Since the schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but no additional value is added.

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 without an action verb. It does not specify what the tool does (e.g., list, retrieve, validate) or how it relates to its name 'iana-zones'. The purpose is ambiguous and indistinguishable from a static reference.

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 siblings like 'timezone', 'tz-europe-london', or 'utc-time'. No conditions, examples, or context are provided, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate invocation scenario.

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 only states the basic action and output but does not disclose any potential side effects, error handling, or limitations (e.g., what happens if robots.txt is missing or inaccessible).

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 that conveys the core purpose without superfluous detail. It is well-structured and easy to read.

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 lacks essential context about how the parameters are used, what exactly 'group counts' means, or how the output is formatted. The mismatch between the tool purpose and parameter descriptions further reduces completeness.

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 are misleading and appear to be copied from other tools (e.g., 'url' says 'normalize or cite', 'json' says 'validate', 'zone' says 'timezone'). The tool description does not clarify how any of these four parameters relate to fetching a robots.txt file.

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 ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and the specific output ('return group counts only'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with citations, timezones, or validation.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred, nor does it reference any sibling tools.

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

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

The description clearly discloses the read-only nature (returns parts of a URL) and the specific transformation (drops query and fragment). It does not mention side effects, but none are implied. The absence of annotations means the description carries the full burden, which it fulfills well.

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 to the point, using a single sentence to convey the core functionality and the dropping behavior. No redundant or unnecessary information is present.

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 because it does not address the presence of parameters like 'json', 'host', and 'zone' that have descriptions unrelated to the stated purpose. This mismatch leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's actual interface and behavior.

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

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

The schema includes parameters (url, host, json, zone) with individual descriptions, but only 'url' aligns with the stated purpose. The descriptions for 'json' and 'zone' are unrelated to URL normalization and are not explained in the tool description, creating confusion about their roles.

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 precisely states the tool's function: returning origin, host, and path for a URL and dropping query and fragment. This is specific and 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 mentions the behavior of dropping query and fragment, which gives some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like domain-shape or inspect-robots, leaving some ambiguity.

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 behavioral details are disclosed. The description does not mention side effects, output format, required permissions, or error behavior. The parameters (url, host, json, zone) suggest unrelated functionality, adding confusion rather than transparency.

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

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

The description is very short, but brevity without substance is not effective. The single sentence lacks structure and fails to convey the tool's function, parameters, or usage. It is concise in word count but not in communicative efficiency.

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 too sparse for a tool with four parameters and no annotations. It does not explain the purpose, input requirements, return value, or relation to sibling tools. An agent given only this description would be unable to use the tool correctly, especially given the mismatched parameter names.

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

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

Although each parameter has a description, they are entirely disconnected from the tool's purported purpose. Parameters like 'json' (validate) and 'zone' (IANA timezone) imply completely different operations, and there is no explanation of how they relate to HTTP status codes. The schema coverage is 100% but the semantics are 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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' is a noun phrase that doesn't specify an action, so it's unclear whether the tool returns a list, looks up a code, or validates something. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json or normalize-url, which could also relate to HTTP or JSON concepts.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, examples, or conditions are provided. The generic parameter descriptions (url, host, json, zone) do not align with the stated purpose of an HTTP status code catalog, leaving the agent without any basis for invocation.

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 implies a read-only, deterministic lookup with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state this. There are no annotations to supplement, so the agent must rely on common sense that fetching current time is non-destructive. The lack of any mention of errors or edge cases (e.g., invalid timezone) reduces transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely brief, which is efficient. However, it omits any mention of the output format or the fact that a timezone parameter is required, so it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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

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

Given the mismatched schema parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of each parameter, nor does it describe the output structure (e.g., a string with the time). The lack of an output schema amplifies the need for a clearer description, which is absent.

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 (url, host, json, zone), but the descriptions for url, host, and json are clearly mismatched with the timezone purpose, being copied from a different tool. The description does not clarify that only 'zone' is relevant or explain the others. This is highly misleading and fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: returning the current time in a named IANA timezone. It is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like utc-time and tz-europe-london, which are also time-related but with different scopes.

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 or tz-europe-london. The description does not mention any prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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. It does not mention whether the tool ignores parameters like 'url', 'host', or 'json', nor does it explain any side effects or limitations. The generic parameter descriptions conflict with the tool's specific timezone focus, and no clarification is provided.

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. It is efficient but lacks essential context about parameters and usage, making it slightly under-structured for the tool's 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?

The description is incomplete given the schema. It does not address why parameters like 'url' and 'json' are present or whether they are relevant. The tool's specific timezone focus is not reconciled with the generic parameter set.

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

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

The schema includes parameters for url, host, json, and zone, but the description does not explain how these relate to the tool's function. The parameter descriptions appear generic and mismatched with the tool's purpose, adding confusion rather than 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: providing the current local time in Europe/London. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'timezone' (general) and 'utc-time' (UTC).

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 such as 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The description lacks any context for selecting this tool 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the tool returns a timestamp, implying a read-only operation, but gives no detail on side effects, dependencies, or whether the parameters affect the output. The unrelated parameters are entirely unexplained, creating potential for misuse.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is appropriately concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful; conciseness should not come at the expense of essential information. It does not front-load critical details like the return format or parameter relevance.

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 four parameters that appear unrelated to the tool's purpose, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what parameters to provide, what the output will look like, or how this tool differs from similar ones. This is inadequate for any realistic use case.

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

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

While schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') are completely disconnected from the tool's stated purpose of returning a UTC timestamp. The description adds no context about how these parameters are used, leaving the agent confused about what to pass. The baseline of 3 is not met because the description fails to integrate the parameters into the tool's function.

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

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

The description 'Current UTC timestamp.' clearly states the tool returns the current time in UTC. It is distinct from siblings like 'timezone' which likely deal with timezone conversions. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., ISO 8601, Unix epoch), and the presence of unrelated parameters in the schema muddies the purpose.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'. The description does not mention exclusions or complementary tools, leaving the agent to guess from the name alone.

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

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

The description states that the body is discarded, which implies no side effects. However, it does not disclose behavior for the other parameters (url, host, zone) or mention error handling, return values, or edge cases. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is exceptionally concise, using only two sentences. It is efficiently worded and front-loaded with the core purpose, though it omits necessary 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 lacks crucial context: no output schema is defined, the roles of extra parameters are unexplained, and there is no mention of expected behavior on success/failure. It is not complete enough for an agent to use 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?

The schema descriptions for url, host, json, and zone are present but do not clarify how they relate to the tool's purpose. The tool description adds no meaning to these parameters, leaving ambiguity about their roles in validating JSON.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to check if a body is valid JSON. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('body'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like normalize-url and utc-time.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool would be preferred.

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