Europe/Madrid clock

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

The description discloses the non-storage of page content ('Page content is not stored.'), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not explain other behaviors such as whether the tool performs network requests, handles redirects, or has any side effects. With no annotations provided, this partial disclosure is insufficient for full 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 concise, consisting of just two short sentences. It conveys the core functionality without any fluff or redundant information. This is ideal for an agent to quickly 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 description lacks essential context. It does not explain the tool's relationship to sibling tools, the intended use case, or how the parameters are meant to be used together. The presence of unrelated parameters and the tool name 'citation' (which is not mentioned in the description) creates confusion. The description is far from complete for an agent to use effectively.

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

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

The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, but they are minimal and largely unrelated to the stated purpose. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to explain how 'host', 'json', or 'zone' relate to returning host, scheme, and HTTP status. The mismatch between the tool's purpose and the parameters reduces clarity significantly.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL') and identifies the resource (URL). This distinguishes it from most sibling tools like timezone or validate-json, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is understandable without ambiguity.

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. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool would be preferred over normalize-url, status-catalog, or others. The agent is left without direction on selection.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions that identifiers are not retained, which is a privacy detail, but it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, or what the response format looks like.

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

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

The description is short and to the point, but the brevity contributes to its vagueness. It does not waste words, but it also does not provide enough substance to be useful.

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

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

The tool's complexity is moderate given the four parameters, but the description fails to explain how 'classification' relates to them. Without that context, an agent cannot determine what output to expect or how to invoke the tool properly.

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?

Each parameter has a brief description (e.g., 'url' as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), but the combination of url, host, json, and zone is odd for a 'compatibility' tool. The individual meanings are clear, yet their relationship to the tool's purpose is not explained.

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 verb 'Show' is vague, and 'how this request is classified' gives only a general sense of the tool's purpose. It does not specify what kind of classification or what the output represents.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., validate-json, normalize-url). The description is too ambiguous to infer appropriate usage conditions.

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

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

Beyond stating it does not provide WHOIS/ownership data, the description discloses no other behavioral aspects such as output format, error handling, or side effects. There are no annotations to supplement this, so the agent is left with minimal insight into what happens when the tool is called.

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, succinct sentence without filler. However, it lacks any structured breakdown of parameters or output, which would be helpful given the tool has four parameters. Still, the brevity is a positive attribute.

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 four parameters and a non-obvious operation, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the expected output (e.g., a list of labels), how the parameters are used, or any constraints. This forces the agent to guess or fall back on trial and error, making the tool unreliable without additional documentation.

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

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

The schema descriptions for url, host, json, and zone are generic and appear copied from other tools (e.g., json is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'), which does not align with splitting a hostname into labels. The tool description itself does not explain how these parameters map to the operation, leaving the agent confused about which parameter to provide.

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: 'Split a hostname into labels' and explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data, which helps differentiate from potential sibling tools that provide ownership info. However, it does not clarify how the listed parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to the splitting operation, leaving some ambiguity about the exact resource being operated on.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url or validate-json. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is preferred. The absence of any usage context makes it difficult for an agent to decide when to invoke 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that IANA timezone names are involved, not what the tool returns, whether it performs validation/lookup, how parameters are consumed, or whether the operation is safe or mutating.

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

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

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It loses points only because the brevity comes at the cost of essential operational detail, but the dimension measures conciseness and this is 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must do significant explanatory work. It does not explain the expected return value, the role of the four optional parameters, or the relationship between this tool and the sibling timezone tools. For a 4-parameter tool, this is incomplete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents each parameter individually. The description adds very little parameter meaning: 'for clock calls' is too weak to explain why url, host, and json are relevant to timezone names.

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 conveys a resource ('common IANA timezone names') and a domain ('for clock calls'), but it lacks a verb and never states the actual action of the tool. The parameter names (url, host, json, zone) do not obviously map to a simple 'list of zones' operation, so the tool's function remains 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like timezone, tz-europe-madrid, or utc-time. 'For clock calls' hints at a narrow context, but there is no explicit condition, no alternative named, and no exclusion.

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 disclosing behavior. It only states the basic action and output, omitting any details about side effects, error handling, or the fact that parameters like json and zone appear unrelated to robots.txt.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without extraneous detail.

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

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

Given the 4-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the role of each parameter in the context of robots.txt inspection, nor any return format or failure modes, making the tool's full usage ambiguous.

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

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

Although every parameter has a description (100% coverage), the descriptions (e.g., 'JSON text to validate', 'IANA timezone name') are mismatched with the tool's stated purpose of fetching robots.txt, leaving the agent unclear how these parameters relate to the operation.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and its output ('return group counts only'), distinguishing it from the sibling tools like normalize-url and validate-json.

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 normalize-url or validate-json, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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 explicitly states that query and fragment are dropped, disclosing the tool's behavior. Since there are no annotations to carry this burden, the description provides a clear expectation of output transformation.

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 packs all essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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

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

The description omits any explanation of the parameters (especially the mismatched ones) and does not specify the output format or structure. Given the schema inconsistency, the description is incomplete for a user to reliably deploy the 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?

The input schema lists parameters (url, host, json, zone) that do not align with the described functionality. Only 'url' seems relevant, while 'host', 'json', and 'zone' are unrelated and unexplained, creating significant ambiguity about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 with a specific verb (return) and a precise output (origin, host, path) while also noting what is discarded (query, fragment). This unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose.

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

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

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need URL components) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or mention when not to use it. It gives no guidance on 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?

No behavioral details are disclosed beyond the word 'catalog'. There is no mention of whether the tool is read-only, performs any side effects, or handles inputs in a specific way. Since there are no annotations to fill this gap, the description carries the full burden and fails to inform about potential behaviors.

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

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

The description is only one sentence, which is concise in word count, but it omits essential information about the tool's functionality and parameters. Front-loading is minimal—it names the resource but fails to specify the operation or usage context, making the brevity counterproductive.

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

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

The tool lacks critical context: no explanation of how the input parameters relate to status codes, what output format is expected, or how it integrates with sibling tools. Given the mismatched parameters and vague purpose, an agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool without additional 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?

While each parameter has a description, these descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate') are entirely unrelated to the stated purpose of providing HTTP status codes. The schema descriptions do not clarify how url, host, json, or zone could be used in the context of a status code catalog, 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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' indicates a reference list but does not specify the exact action (e.g., retrieve all, look up by code) or how the input parameters (url, host, json, zone) relate to that purpose. This vagueness makes it difficult to distinguish from other tools with similar catalog-like behavior.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like validate-json, normalize-url, or timezone. There is no explanation of scenarios where status-catalog would be preferred or how it differs from 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?

There are no annotations indicating read-only or side-effect-free behavior. The description does not disclose error handling, network dependencies, or whether the time is fetched live. The presence of unrelated parameters further obscures the tool's actual behavior, making it hard for an agent to predict what happens when called.

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 itself is succinct, but the overall definition is poorly structured. The schema carries four properties when only one is relevant, adding noise and confusion. A concise, focused definition would include just the zone parameter and perhaps an output description. The current structure forces the agent to reconcile unrelated fields with the stated 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?

The tool lacks essential context: no output schema, no example usage, no mention of whether the time is returned as a string, timestamp, or structured object. The sibling tools (utc-time, tz-europe-madrid) suggest there is a family of time-related tools, but this definition does not explain how timezone fits with them. The missing return type and behavior description leave an agent 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?

The schema's parameter descriptions are almost entirely irrelevant: 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'Public hostname', and 'JSON text to validate' have nothing to do with timezone lookups. Only 'zone' has a sensible description ('IANA timezone name'), but the confusing descriptors for other parameters undermine trust and likely cause incorrect usage. Schema coverage is 100% only because every property has a description, but the descriptions are wrong for this tool.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. This distinguishes it from generic time tools and specific alternatives like utc-time or tz-europe-madrid. However, it does not mention the output format or whether it returns additional data, so slight ambiguity remains.

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. More critically, the schema includes three irrelevant parameters (url, host, json) with descriptions belonging to other tools, which actively misleads an agent into thinking this tool handles URLs, hosts, or JSON validation. No instructions are given about valid timezone formats or fallback behavior.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description provides no information about side effects, data modifications, or any limitations. The tool appears to be a simple lookup but nothing is disclosed about its behavior beyond the bare statement.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It directly states the tool's purpose without fluff.

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 critically incomplete for proper use. It fails to explain the role of any parameter, how to specify the time zone, or how the tool relates to its siblings. This lack of context makes the tool effectively unusable 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?

The schema lists four parameters (url, host, json, zone) but the description does not explain any of them. It is unclear which parameter is relevant for the time query, leaving the agent without necessary information to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

The description states the tool provides the current local time in Europe/Madrid, which identifies the core function. However, it does not clarify how to request this time given the multiple input parameters, making the purpose only partially clear.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or selection criteria.

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

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return format, side effects, or assumptions. The parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize') directly contradict the stated purpose of returning a UTC timestamp, making behavior even more 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 (a single phrase) and lacks any structural organization. While concise, it omits essential details about parameters, output, or usage, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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

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

The tool definition is incomplete: there is no description of the return value, no indication of which parameters are optional, and no explanation of how the parameters relate to the tool's purpose. Given the low complexity of a timestamp tool, this simple description still fails to cover essential 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?

All four parameters have descriptions that seem copied from other tools (url, host, json, zone) and have no relevance to obtaining a UTC timestamp. The schema provides no meaningful semantic alignment with the tool's purpose, and the individual parameter descriptions 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 states 'Current UTC timestamp,' which is a clear action and resource, but the parameter schema is entirely unrelated (url, host, json, zone) and creates confusion about what the tool actually does. The mismatch between description and parameters undermines clarity.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'tz-europe-madrid.' No context is given for selecting this tool 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?

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes the body is discarded, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return value is, or how errors are handled. Minimal disclosure leaves 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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary context, making it more under-specified than appropriately concise.

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

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

With four parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. The unrelated parameters (url, host, zone) suggest a possible mismatch between description and schema, leaving an agent unsure how 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?

While the schema provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), the tool description does not clarify that the 'json' parameter is the 'body' being validated. It also ignores the other parameters (url, host, zone), which appear irrelevant to JSON validation, creating confusion about their purpose.

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

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

The description states a clear action (check validity) and resource (JSON body), distinguishing it from sibling tools like normalize-url or timezone. However, 'body' is ambiguous—the schema includes a 'json' parameter but also unrelated fields (url, host, zone), so it's not explicit which parameter is validated.

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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when to choose this over other validation or URL/timezone tools.

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