Europe/Podgorica clock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that task text is discarded, but it does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or what the output format is beyond a list of items. This is minimal for a tool with no safety hints.

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 purpose is stated first, and the extra note about discarded task text is succinct. 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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain which parameters are relevant, how they are used, what the exact output structure is, or any prerequisites. The note about discarding text is helpful but far from sufficient for such a broad 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a descriptive comment in the schema (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The description itself adds no parameter-specific info, but the schema already provides clear semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 finds a specific resource (Monid, a pay-per-call gateway) and lists what it returns (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not state conditions for use, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals one key behavior (no browser launch) but remains silent on whether it makes network requests, whether it is read-only, what it returns on success/failure, or how it interprets 'can be opened.' This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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

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

The description is only two sentences, extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and the key 'no browser' behavior. It wastes no words, though it omits crucial details that would make it more complete.

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 annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters are used, or what 'can be opened' means operationally. An agent would struggle to know when and how to invoke this tool correctly.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which meets the baseline for high coverage. However, it does not help reconcile why parameters like city, json, or zone relate to checking a URL, leaving some semantic ambiguity.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool checks whether a URL can be opened and explicitly notes that no browser is launched. This verb+resource statement is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like playwright-url-ok that might launch a browser, and fetch-status that fetches content.

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

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

The description implies usage for lightweight URL checks without a browser, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. The exclusion of browser launch hints at a lighter-weight alternative but stops short of naming alternatives or conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Expression discarded,' which is vague and unconnected to any parameter. It does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, return format, or any other behavior. This is grossly inadequate for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential information about parameter mapping and purpose, so brevity here is a defect, not a virtue. Front-loading is irrelevant when the content is misleading.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, how parameters relate to the operation, or any usage context. An agent has essentially no useful information to make a correct call. This is far below the minimum viable 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no parameter meaning and actively confuses it. The description says 'arithmetic' while schema params are about URLs, cities, JSON, paths, etc. It does not clarify which parameter holds the arithmetic expression, so an agent cannot correctly invoke the tool from the description alone.

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 ('Evaluate') and resource ('a+b style arithmetic'), but it does not map to any of the 9 schema parameters. No parameter is named as the expression, and the listed params (ref, url, city, etc.) seem unrelated to arithmetic. It also fails to distinguish this tool from its 27 siblings, which are mostly fetch/validation tools.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description gives no context that would help an agent decide to call calc-eval over, say, fetch-status or validate-json.

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

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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful privacy note, but it fails to mention that the tool appears to handle multiple input types (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) based on the schema. The description only covers the URL case, leaving the behavior for other parameters opaque. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and under-delivers.

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-loading the core action and then adding a privacy note. There is zero wasted language, and it is easy to parse at a glance.

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 and no output schema, yet the description only explains behavior for the 'url' parameter. It does not describe what happens for other parameters, nor does it detail the return format (e.g., JSON structure). Given the tool's apparent multi-purpose nature, the description is far from complete for an agent to use all capabilities correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific context beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3. It does not explain how the parameters relate or which to use in which scenario.

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 (return) and resource (host, scheme, and HTTP status) for a URL, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like normalize-url or web-fetch. The action and scope are unambiguous, even though the tool name 'citation' is unusual.

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 such as fetch-status or browser-url-ok. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over its 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'No identifiers are retained', which is a privacy note, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it makes network calls, or what side effects occur. The parameter hints like 'discarded' and 'no disk access' are in the schema, not the main 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 only two sentences, which is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. The first sentence is vague and the second offers a single detail. It is not conciseness but inadequacy – it does not earn 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?

Given the complexity of 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the classification result looks like, how the inputs are combined, or what an agent should expect as output.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% – every parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value, so the baseline 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 says 'Show how this request is classified' but does not define what 'request' means, what classification scheme is used, or how this differs from siblings like domain-shape, validate-json, or normalize-url. It is vague and lacks a specific verb-resource pair.

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 27 sibling tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving an agent without a basis for 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions hostname splitting and the absence of WHOIS/ownership data, but says nothing about how the other parameters (city, feed, json, zone, query, etc.) are handled or what side effects occur. The schema descriptions like 'discarded after the check' hint at validation behavior, but the tool description does not unify this.

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

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

The description is a single, grammatically simple sentence that front-loads the core action and limitation. It is concise with no filler, but it omits the tool's full parameter surface, which undermines its utility despite its 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?

Given nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It only covers hostname handling and provides no information about the behavior for the other eight parameters, error cases, or return values. An agent cannot reliably predict what this tool does with most inputs.

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% coverage with per-parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds no meaning beyond that. More critically, the description's focus on hostname conflicts with the wide array of parameters, creating confusion about the tool's actual scope. The description fails to explain how parameters relate to the stated purpose.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Split a hostname into labels') and a clear limitation ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape and jira-key-shape. However, the input schema contains nine unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, json, etc.), so the description only covers a fraction of the tool's apparent 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or the other shape tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'HEAD a public URL and return status only' and omits any mention of side effects, rate limits, auth, failure behavior, or the fact that it also validates non-URL shapes. The lack of transparency is compounded by the parameter mismatch.

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 with no fluff. The core action and output are front-loaded. It is maximally concise, though brevity here sacrifices completeness.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description explains only one narrow use case. It fails to explain what 'status' means, how to use the other parameters, what shape checks are performed, or why those parameters exist. This is grossly incomplete for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds nothing about how parameters relate or how they are used. The schema descriptions themselves are terse but adequate; the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'HEAD a public URL and return status only' names a specific verb and resource, but the schema includes nine unrelated optional parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query) described as 'discarded after the shape check'. This mismatch means the description does not accurately cover the tool's actual scope, making it misleading about what the tool does.

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 the many siblings (web-fetch, browser-url-ok, normalize-url, etc.). The phrase 'return status only' implies a narrow use case, but it never names alternatives or exclusions, 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions parsing and discarding the path, but does not state return format, network access, or how other parameters are handled (despite schema indicating they are discarded). The description is too sparse to be transparent.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the primary action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it may be too terse given the 9-parameter schema. Still, it is structurally efficient.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return value, the purpose of the unrelated parameters, or why they are all optional. The schema descriptions help, but the overall purpose remains ambiguous and the description fails to provide a complete picture.

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 meaningful description that already explains its role (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without enhancing parameter understanding.

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: parse a Figma file URL and discard the path. It is clear and distinct from siblings like browser-url-ok or normalize-url, which focus on other URL aspects. However, it does not elaborate on what 'shape' means or how the result is returned, so it is not fully explicit.

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, exclusions, or related tools such as browser-url-ok or domain-shape. An agent must infer usage from the name and minimal description, which is insufficient.

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 burden. It does disclose 'No disk access,' which is useful, but it says nothing about what the tool does with the other parameters (e.g., does it validate JSON? normalize URLs?), what it returns, or any side effects. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with this breadth.

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 (two short sentences) and front-loads the 'path' focus, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential structure such as listing supported input types or indicating this is a multi-purpose validator. The brevity is not effective conciseness—it omits critical 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain how the tool behaves for each parameter type, what constitutes a 'safe' path, what the result format is, or how it relates to sibling validators. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without inspecting the schema in detail, and even then the description misleads.

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 baseline is 3 because the schema documents each parameter. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and actually undermines it by implying only 'path' is relevant. It fails to clarify that different parameters correspond to different validation types, potentially confusing the agent 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 verb and resource ('Check whether a path looks safe') but only covers one of nine parameters in the schema. The tool actually accepts ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query, implying it validates many shapes, yet the description only mentions path. This is misleading about scope and fails to distinguish from siblings like browser-url-ok 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar shape-check siblings (browser-url-ok, domain-shape, jira-key-shape, etc.). The description gives no context, no exclusions, and no alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the schema.

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 the tool returns latitude and longitude, but does not mention external service dependency (Open-Meteo), potential network calls, rate limits, or how the many input parameters are handled (e.g., which are discarded and which are used). 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and data source. However, it is perhaps too terse, omitting essential contextual details that could have been included without bloat.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema. The description does not clarify which parameter actually specifies the place, what the return format is, or how the other parameters are used (or ignored). This leaves an agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly, making the description inadequate for its 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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, each with a clear description (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate or clarify the relationship between parameters and the primary geo lookup. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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: 'Latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo.' This clearly conveys the core function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like weather-hint or timezone, and it does not reconcile the broad input schema (which includes non-place parameters like json, path, ref) with the stated purpose, leaving some 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, exclusions, or prerequisites. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information, forcing the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the parsing function and does not mention potential errors, return format, side effects, or that non-url parameters are discarded. The description is silent on these aspects, leaving the agent to guess at behavior beyond the parse.

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 waste. It efficiently conveys the core action and target. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simple 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of the primary 'url' parameter, what the returned owner/repo looks like, or how to handle malformed URLs. An agent would need to infer much of the call contract from the schema alone, which is confusing due to irrelevant fields.

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 schema includes many parameters (city, feed, host, json, path, zone) that seem unrelated to parsing a GitHub URL. The description does not clarify which parameter is the primary input (presumably 'url') or why the others exist. This creates confusion rather than adding value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a clear verb ('parse') and a specific resource ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling URL-shape tools (figma-url-shape, jira-key-shape) by naming the GitHub domain. This meets the bar for a specific verb+resource.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for GitHub URLs only or suggest other tools for other URL types. The usage context is only implied by the description's mention of GitHub, but no explicit when-to-use or exclusion is given.

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 only mentions that titles are discarded, but does not disclose network access, failure modes, caching, or that the tool accepts many optional parameters that are largely irrelevant to the described purpose.

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, front-loading the core purpose immediately. It is maximally concise and 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?

Despite the simple purpose, the tool accepts nine optional parameters that are seemingly unrelated to counting HN stories. The description does not explain how these parameters interact with the count or whether they are ignored entirely. Without an output schema or additional context, an agent would be uncertain how to invoke this tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter individually described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information; it neither clarifies which parameters are relevant for the HN count nor explains the relationship between the parameters and the described action.

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) and resource (Hacker News front-page stories) and even adds the useful detail that titles are discarded. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, though none seem to directly compete with this specific count 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions, no exclusions. It simply states what it does without contextualizing against siblings like web-fetch or domain-shape.

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 of explaining behavior. It only states what the tool contains ('Common IANA timezone names') and does not disclose how the tool behaves: whether it returns a list, ignores inputs, requires parameters, or has any side effects. The input schema shows parameters are 'discarded after the shape check,' but the description never mentions this important behavioral trait.

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 short sentence, which is superficially concise, but it omits the operational essentials such as what the tool returns and how its parameters are handled. This is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so the brevity does not earn a high score.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence noun phrase is far from adequate. An agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool, what to expect in the response, or why unrelated parameters like url and json appear in the schema. The description is incomplete for even basic usage.

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 high coverage with descriptions for all seven parameters, including that each is 'discarded after the shape check,' so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain why a timezone-name tool accepts parameters like url, json, and path. It neither conflicts with the schema nor meaningfully enhances it.

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—'IANA timezone names'—and some context ('for clock calls'), so it is not a complete tautology. However, it uses a noun phrase instead of a verb like 'lists' or 'returns', leaving the actual operation implicit. It does loosely distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone and utc-time, but not clearly enough for a confident 4.

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 'for clock calls' implies the tool is meant to supply timezone names to other clock-related tools, giving some usage context. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over timezone, utc-time, or other siblings, and no 'when not to use' guidance. The usage is only implied, not clearly specified.

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 usefully discloses that the target must be public and that only group counts are returned. It does not mention error behavior, network side effects, or which inputs are actually used.

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 clean sentence with no filler; the key constraints 'public' and 'group counts only' are 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and nine optional parameters, the description is too thin: an agent cannot tell which parameter supplies the robots.txt URL, what the group-count result looks like, or how failures are reported.

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 schema descriptions are generic and recycled across tools ('URL to normalize or cite', 'public hostname'), and none mentions robots.txt. The description does not say whether to pass url, host, or another parameter, leaving invocation ambiguous across nine optional parameters.

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

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

The description names a concrete verb (fetch), a specific resource (public robots.txt), and the exact output shape (group counts only), which separates it from web-fetch and fetch-status. There is no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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

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

The purpose implies when to use it, namely when an agent needs group counts from a public robots.txt. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as web-fetch or fetch-status, leaving routing mostly to inference.

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 'Key discarded', which hints at non-persistence but omits what constitutes a valid Jira key shape, whether it makes external calls, or what happens on invalid input. The phrase also references a 'key' that doesn't map to any schema parameter, 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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is so brief that it omits essential information about parameter selection and expected behavior, so while concise, it is not efficiently informative.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain which parameter to use, what shape is considered valid, or what the tool returns. The agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without guessing, making it essentially unusable as specified.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the tool description adds no meaning to the parameters. It never indicates which parameter is the Jira key, so the agent cannot infer how to use ref, url, or any other field for the key check. The parameter descriptions themselves are generic and unrelated to Jira, so the description fails to compensate for the mismatch.

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') and a verb, so it's not a tautology. However, it fails to connect this purpose to any of the 9 input parameters—none of which is explicitly a Jira key—leaving the agent unable to determine which parameter to populate. It also doesn't distinguish itself from sibling shape-checkers like github-repo-shape 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only behavioral note, 'Key discarded', is a one-off side effect, not a usage guideline. An agent has no idea when to select this over other shape-check tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the body is discarded, but does not disclose that parameters like 'ref', 'city', and 'json' are also discarded after shape checks, nor does it explain that the tool appears to serve as a multi-purpose hint validator. The description is silent on output format, error behavior, and side effects.

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

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

The description is extremely short (two sentences), which could be conciseness, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently scoped. Critical information about the tool's actual behavior and parameter usage is omitted, so the brevity hurts rather than helps. The information that is present (HTTP status, body discarded) is not front-loaded effectively because it doesn't clarify the tool's broader function.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's full scope (which parameters trigger which checks), what the output actually is beyond 'HTTP status', or how to invoke it correctly. An agent cannot reliably select and call this tool based on the given 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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not help the agent decide which of the 9 optional parameters to use or how they relate to the stated purpose, but it does not contradict the schema either.

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

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

The description states a specific action (get HTTP status) and resource (public library docs URL), giving a clear verb and object. However, it is vague about what qualifies as a public library docs URL and entirely ignores the 9-parameter schema, which suggests the tool handles many input types (city, feed, json, path, etc.). This makes the stated purpose narrow and potentially misleading.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description offers zero routing information.

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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'Values discarded,' which is one behavioral trait, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, return format, or what happens with the non-json parameters. This is a significant gap for a tool that accepts many inputs.

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 efficient, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations. It lacks essential front-loaded context about what the tool does with the various inputs, making it more under-specification than 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is woefully inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of the tool in relation to its many parameters, does not state return values, and does not address edge cases or error behavior. An agent cannot reliably determine how to call this tool correctly based on the current 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's own per-parameter notes. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't contradict or enhance it.

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 ('Count keys in a JSON object'), but it fails to clarify how this relates to the 8 other parameters in the schema. The presence of params like ref, url, city, and host suggests a broader scope that the description ignores, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual function.

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 its 27 siblings. The description provides no context, no exclusions, and no alternatives, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the name and schema.

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 behavior. It mentions that query and fragment are dropped, but the schema parameter descriptions indicate that many other inputs (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query) are also 'discarded after' some check, which the tool description completely omits. This creates a contradiction between the description and the schema, and the description fails to disclose that the tool likely performs multiple validation/discard operations beyond URL normalization.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary function, but it is structurally inadequate because it ignores the majority of the tool's input surface. It omits essential information about the other parameters and the tool's actual multi-purpose nature. While brevity is good, it comes at the cost of completeness and accuracy.

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 annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly insufficient. It only explains behavior for one parameter and leaves the rest unexplained. The schema descriptions hint at various validation/discard operations that the tool description does not cover. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool for non-URL inputs or understand the full range of behavior, making the definition critically 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the 'url' parameter by specifying the output (origin, host, path) and the dropping of query/fragment, but it says nothing about the other 8 parameters. Since the description claims to be about URL normalization while the schema includes many unrelated parameters, it does not add value for those parameters and actually misleads the agent into thinking they are irrelevant. This fails to compensate for the fact that the schema descriptions of those parameters hint at additional 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 action ('Return origin, host, and path for a URL') but fails to acknowledge the tool's broader scope implied by the schema. The schema includes 9 parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query) unrelated to URL normalization, each described as being 'discarded after' some check, suggesting the tool is actually a multi-purpose shape validator. The description misrepresents the tool's actual purpose and does not distinguish it from siblings like figma-url-shape or github-repo-shape beyond the URL focus.

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 any of the 27 sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or any conditions that would select this tool. An agent has no basis to decide between normalize-url and other URL/shape 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 disclose behavior. It only says 'No browser is launched,' which is a useful differentiator, but it doesn't state whether it performs a network request, what it returns, or how it handles the various parameters that are 'discarded' according to schema. This leaves major behavioral 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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and front-loads the core purpose and a key behavioral note. This earns high marks for structure, though the brevity 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify the return value, which parameter is required for the core check, or how it differs from fetch-status/web-fetch beyond the no-browser note. An agent would struggle to use it correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are described, but the tool description doesn't explain which parameter is the primary 'URL' to check or how the others factor in. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, and the presence of many unrelated parameters (city, feed, zone, query) without explanation in the description is confusing.

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

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

The description states a specific operation: checking whether a URL can be opened, and explicitly notes no browser is launched, which distinguishes it from browser-url-ok. However, it doesn't clarify what 'opened' means (e.g., HTTP request or just URL validation), and the many unrelated parameters (city, feed, etc.) muddy the purpose.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or web-fetch. It only mentions what it doesn't do (no browser) but not when to prefer 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the query is discarded, which is a useful data-handling note implying no persistence. However, it does not explicitly mention read-only status, return format, or other side effects, leaving 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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a behavioral note, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 exposes 9 parameters but the description only mentions 'search query', leaving ambiguity about how to use the other parameters. It does not specify that only the 'query' parameter is used or that others are ignored. There is no output schema, so the return format is unknown. The description is inadequate for a tool with this many parameters.

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 100% coverage for all parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description does not clarify which parameter is the search query, though the schema does label 'query' appropriately.

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 counts characters in a search query, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like memory-key-count by the object being counted, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 memory-key-count or hn-front-count. The description does not mention any exclusions, preconditions, or alternative tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description does not state whether the tool makes network calls, accesses the filesystem, is read-only, or what side effects occur. It also does not explain what the output is. For a tool with parameters like 'url', 'feed', 'host', and 'path', the lack of behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It states a noun phrase rather than an actionable instruction. It is not front-loaded with the key information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly; it is merely a vague label.

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 and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter in the context of the tool, what the tool returns, or any usage context. An agent cannot determine what inputs to provide or what to expect as a result. This is inadequate for a tool with 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter individually documented (e.g., 'url' for HTTPS URL to normalize or cite, 'json' to validate). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond these schema descriptions and does not explain how the parameters contribute to a 'catalog'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already defines each parameter, but the description fails to tie them together.

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 says 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' but does not state what action the tool performs. It does not explain how the nine input parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) relate to a catalog of status codes. The verb is absent; it reads as a noun phrase rather than a function. This is ambiguous and fails to distinguish it from siblings like fetch-status or 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., fetch-status, normalize-url, validate-json, timezone). There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent has no basis to decide if this tool is appropriate for a given task.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Prompt discarded' without explaining side effects, what happens to parameters, whether it is read-only, or what the template contains. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is a critical gap.

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

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

The description is under-specified rather than concise. It consists of a single sentence that fails to convey essential information about the tool's function or parameters. This is not effective conciseness but rather omission.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, what the template looks like, or how the parameters are used. The description provides almost no actionable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter has its own description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), so the schema provides the primary meaning. However, the tool description adds nothing to connect the parameters to the 'three-step thinking template', leaving the overall intent 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 states 'Return a three-step thinking template' which is a verb and a resource, but it is vague because the template's content and purpose are unspecified. It does not distinguish from siblings like calc-eval or validate-json, and the connection to the 9 parameters is unclear. 'Prompt discarded' adds confusion rather than 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or examples. The tool is indistinguishable from other utility tools 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 full behavioral burden. It only states the core function but does not disclose that only the 'zone' parameter is used while others are discarded (as indicated in the schema descriptions), nor does it describe error behavior or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with 9 parameters where most are irrelevant.

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 states the core function with no waste. However, given the complex schema and many sibling tools, it could benefit from a brief note on parameter usage, which would improve clarity 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?

With 9 parameters but only one relevant, no output schema, and no mention of return format, the description is incomplete. An agent might call this tool with irrelevant parameters (e.g., 'url' or 'json') because the schema lists them, and the description does not clarify that only 'zone' matters. The tool also lacks any explanation of what is returned, which is essential for a time lookup.

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 is already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as clarifying that only 'zone' is relevant or that others are ignored. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but provides no extra value.

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

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

The description 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' states a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (current time in a named IANA timezone), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'utc-time' (which returns UTC time) and 'iana-zones' (which lists zone names). The 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of choosing between 'utc-time' for UTC or 'iana-zones' for zone lists, and the description does not indicate when not to use this tool. The schema's many unrelated parameters add further confusion about intended usage.

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 disclose all behavioral traits. It states the output (current UTC timestamp) but fails to mention that the nine optional parameters are validation-only and discarded after checks, as implied by the schema. This is a significant omission because an agent might assume the parameters affect the timestamp or are required for some operation. The description does not contradict annotations (there are none), but it leaves out critical behavioral context.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—one sentence—and front-loads the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundancy. However, it might be too under-specified for a tool with a complex parameter schema, but the schema itself handles parameter documentation. The conciseness is appropriate for stating the primary function.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too minimal. It does not explain that the parameters are validation-only and that the output is always the current UTC time regardless of inputs. An agent reading only the description would not know how to use the parameters or what the response format is. The schema provides parameter details, but the description fails to tie them together or set expectations for the return value.

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% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, including notes like 'discarded after the shape check', so the schema already clarifies parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. The baseline of 3 applies because the description does not compensate for any schema gaps, but none exist.

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's primary purpose: retrieving the current UTC time. It is specific enough to distinguish from timezone-related tools, though it does not explicitly mention that it is distinct from the 'timezone' sibling, which might handle conversions. The verb-resource pairing is clear.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that 'timezone' or 'iana-zones' might be more appropriate for timezone conversions, nor does it specify any conditions or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage purely from the name and the 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the body is discarded, which is useful, but it omits other behaviors. The presence of many seemingly unrelated parameters (url, city, feed, etc.) is unexplained, and there's no mention of output format, side effects, or whether network calls occur. This is a significant transparency gap.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and the disposal behavior. However, it may be too terse given the tool's complexity, but it avoids redundancy.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain which parameter holds the JSON, what the return value is (e.g., boolean or error), or why unrelated parameters (url, city, feed, etc.) exist. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without further inference. This is a critical gap.

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%—each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't clarify which parameter is the 'body' or how parameters relate. Baseline is 3 for high coverage, and the description does not add value.

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 whether a body is valid JSON') and resource ('body' as JSON), but the term 'body' is ambiguous—none of the 9 schema parameters is named 'body'. The closest is 'json', but the description doesn't reference it. This ambiguity reduces clarity, though the core purpose is understandable.

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. Sibling tools like browser-url-ok, fetch-status, and calc-eval are distinct, but the description doesn't mention conditions for choosing validate-json. There's no mention of prerequisites, use cases, 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'via Open-Meteo,' which implies a network call, but does not disclose that other parameters are discarded, whether there are rate limits, or what the response format is. The schema notes 'discarded after the shape check' for many params, but the description does not surface this key behavior.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It lacks critical information about the tool's full behavior and parameter usage. The front-loaded core statement is clear, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 output schema, no annotations, and a complex set of sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the full functionality, the purpose of each parameter, the output format, or how to use it correctly. An agent cannot reliably select or 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 baseline is 3. However, the description only mentions the city parameter and ignores the other eight parameters entirely. It does not help the agent understand why those parameters exist or how they relate to the weather hint functionality. The schema descriptions are self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond them and actually misleads by implying only city is relevant.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo.' This is clear about the core function, but it does not differentiate from siblings like geo-hint or timezone, and the schema includes many unrelated parameters (ref, url, json, etc.) that are not mentioned, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual 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. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or when not to use it. With 28 siblings, the lack of usage guidance is a significant omission.

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 burden. It discloses that the body is discarded and that only public URLs are accepted, which is useful. However, it omits error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, 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 extremely concise, two clauses, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters but the description only references 'public URL' without explaining how the other parameters relate. The schema descriptions mention 'discarded after check', but the description does not clarify the overall workflow, making it incomplete for an agent deciding which parameters to supply.

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 documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable per the baseline for full coverage, but it does not clarify which parameter is the primary focus (presumably 'url').

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 fetches a public URL and returns HTTP status and content type, with body discarded. This is specific but does not differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, which likely overlap in 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 fetch-status or browser-url-ok. The description gives no context about scenarios or exclusions, 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Title discarded after the call,' which is a minor data-handling note, but it does not describe what the tool actually does with the other parameters, what it returns, or any side effects. The behavior is largely unexplained, especially given the mismatch between the purpose and the schema.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not provide necessary information, and the single sentence does not earn its place by clarifying purpose 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically insufficient. It fails to explain the tool's overall behavior, how to invoke it correctly, or what response to expect. The tool appears to be a generic utility with mismatched 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented individually. However, the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like 'ref', 'url', or 'city' relate to checking a Wikipedia title. The description is even misleading because it implies a title input that does not exist in the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists') but fails to connect it to any of the 9 input parameters, none of which are named 'title'. This creates ambiguity about which parameter corresponds to the title. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser-url-ok' or 'fetch-status', which might also check URL/title availability.

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 exclusions. The single sentence gives no indication of 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.