Europe/Prague clock

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that task text is discarded and that the 'path' parameter involves no disk access, which is useful transparency. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or what happens on errors, leaving gaps for an agent relying solely on this text.

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 core purpose and return items are front-loaded, and the 'Task text discarded' note is placed at the end. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values, which it does by listing the returned items. However, with 9 optional parameters, it does not clarify when to use which parameter or provide any usage examples. It also lacks error or edge-case information. While it covers the basics, it is not fully complete for a tool with this many 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only restates the discard behavior for some parameters, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't compensate 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 specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), and enumerates what it returns (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This is clear and distinct from siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The mention of 'Task text discarded' adds a quirk but doesn't confuse the purpose.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when-not to use, prerequisites, or any conditions that select this over sibling tools. It only states what it does, 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that no browser is launched, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it does not disclose whether the tool performs network requests, how errors are reported, or what side effects (if any) occur. The mismatch between the description's narrow focus and the 9 unrelated parameters also raises questions about undisclosed 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 extremely concise (two short sentences) but is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no other documentation. It lacks structure, fails to mention parameters, and does not provide any context about input or output. Conciseness is not the issue; completeness is.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is grossly inadequate. It only covers the core action and a single behavioral trait, leaving the agent without critical information about how to use the parameters, what the tool actually does with them, and what the result means. The description is far from sufficient for correct invocation.

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

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

The schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3, but the tool description adds no value in explaining how these parameters relate to the stated purpose. The description implies a URL-focused tool, yet parameters like 'city', 'feed', 'json', and 'path' are unrelated and unexplained in the description, creating confusion rather than clarity.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (check whether a URL can be opened) and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like playwright-url-ok by adding 'No browser is launched.' However, it does not specify what 'opened' means (e.g., HTTP status, DNS resolution, format validation), and the presence of many unrelated parameters in the schema suggests the description may not capture the full purpose.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or playwright-url-ok. It does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the expression is discarded, but it does not explain what is actually evaluated, what the return value looks like, or whether any side effects occur.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is stated first. It is compact and every sentence carries content, even though the brevity contributes to the lack of useful guidance.

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, no output schema, no annotations, and 27 sibling tools, the description does not say what the tool returns or how it differs from the many sibling check tools. It is far too sparse to let an agent call this tool with confidence.

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 and each parameter is individually explained, such as url being normalized or cited and json being validated, so the high-coverage baseline applies. However, the tool description itself adds no connection between these parameters and 'a+b style arithmetic,' leaving the relationship 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 names a specific action and resource ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic'), but the meaning is undercut by 'Expression discarded' and there is no arithmetic expression parameter anywhere in the input schema. The tool is not a pure tautology, but it is misleading about what it actually accepts and 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned. The only usage signal is the terse arithmetic claim, which is contradicted by the 'discarded' note and the unrelated schema fields.

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 disclosure burden. The only behavioral disclosure is 'Page content is not stored,' which is genuinely useful. But the description conceals that the tool actually branches across nine different input behaviors (city→weather, json→validation, zone→timezone, query→length check, etc.), which is a major transparency failure — the agent does not know what the tool really does for non-URL 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a useful privacy note second. No wasted words. It loses a point only because its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification — it is short because it omits the other eight behaviors entirely.

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 9-parameter, 0-required, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description must explain what each param does and what is returned. It covers only the URL case, leaving the other eight behaviors and the return format for non-URL inputs entirely unspecified. The tool is far too complex for such a thin description; the agent cannot correctly invoke it for city, json, zone, query, or feed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 — the schema already documents all 9 parameters with useful notes ('discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access', etc.). The description adds zero parameter-level value beyond the schema; it only mentions the URL parameter indirectly. It does not need to compensate since the schema carries the load, hence a 3.

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+resource for the URL case ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), which is specific and distinguishes from the URL-related siblings. However, the schema reveals 9 heterogeneous parameters (git refs, weather cities, RSS feeds, JSON validation, file paths, timezones, search queries) that the description entirely omits, so the stated purpose covers only a fraction of the tool's actual behavior and is misleading about its 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 its many overlapping siblings (normalize-url, fetch-status, web-fetch, browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, validate-json, timezone, utc-time, weather-hint, iana-zones, search-query-len). No exclusions, no conditions, no alternative routing. Given the dense sibling landscape, an agent cannot determine which tool handles a given input.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'No identifiers are retained,' a privacy guarantee, but doesn't disclose whether the tool performs side effects (network, disk, writes), whether it's read-only, or what exactly happens to the inputs. The verb 'show' implies read-only, but that's not explicit.

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 (two sentences) with no wasted words, which is good. However, the first sentence is vague and the second is a privacy note; the brevity doesn't compensate for the lack of substantive content. It's concise but not helpful.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns and how the parameters are used. It says 'Show how this request is classified' but doesn't define the classification output or the role of each parameter. An agent can't predict the response format or even know if it returns a string, a boolean, or something else.

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%—every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail; it's generic. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't need to repeat 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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague—it doesn't specify what 'classified' means (e.g., shape validation, type check, compatibility assessment). The name 'compatibility' hints at a purpose, but the description doesn't name a concrete verb+resource or distinguish it from siblings like 'domain-shape' 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 27 siblings. No alternatives, no exclusions, no context on typical use cases. An agent gets no help deciding between this and 'validate-json' or 'file-path-ok'.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a single fact—that no WHOIS or ownership data is involved—which implies a read-only, non-network operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is side-effect-free, that it discards all inputs, or what it returns. The single sentence leaves the agent guessing about output format, error behavior, and whether any data is persisted. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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

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

The description is a single, compact sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Split a hostname into labels') and adds a relevant exclusion. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information. This is an exemplary model of conciseness, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters (even if only 'host' is relevant), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is significantly incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., an array of labels), how to invoke it (which parameter to fill), or when to use it over the numerous sibling tools. The presence of many similar tools (normalize-url, browser-url-ok, etc.) makes this lack of context especially problematic. An agent cannot confidently decide to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter has a clear description in the schema (e.g., 'host' is 'Public hostname'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning—it does not even mention the 'host' parameter by name. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it. It also does not clarify which parameter is intended for the hostname, though the schema makes that evident.

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 ('Split') and a clear resource ('a hostname into labels'), and adds the clarifying exclusion 'without WHOIS or ownership data'. It does not degenerate into a tautology, and the core action is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, which also handle hostnames/URLs, so it lacks the sharpness of a 5.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (normalize-url, browser-url-ok, web-fetch, etc.). There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or cases where another tool would be preferred. The only hint is the 'without WHOIS' phrase, but it does not state when one should choose this over a URL normalizer or fetch tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (HEAD) and the output (status only), but omits crucial behaviors: it does not mention that the other 8 parameters are effectively ignored, whether any authentication is needed, rate limits, or what happens on non-200 responses. The schema hints that some parameters are 'discarded' but the description does not integrate that, leaving the agent uncertain about 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 a single sentence with no waste, which is concise. However, it is under-specified: it does not mention the parameter name or that other parameters are irrelevant. It is efficient but at the cost of essential information, so it is not a well-structured, complete description.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not specify which parameter to use, what the response looks like (beyond 'status'), error handling, or any limitations (e.g., only public URLs). An agent would need to probe or guess to use it correctly, making it inadequate for a tool in a large sibling 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but those descriptions are generic and often misleading for this tool (e.g., 'url' says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which does not match a HEAD-status operation). The tool description adds no clarification about which parameter is the primary input, nor does it explain that the other parameters are decoys or unused. With 9 optional parameters and no guidance, the agent cannot confidently choose the right one.

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 (HEAD) and resource (a public URL) and the result (return status only). This distinguishes it from content-fetching tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling. The tool name and description align, but the description does not clarify which of the 9 parameters is the URL, which slightly weakens 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, or web-fetch. It does not state conditions like 'use this when you only need the HTTP status code' or mention any exclusions. An agent would have to infer use cases from the name and description alone, which is insufficient given the crowded sibling space.

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 discloses that the path is discarded, but says nothing about the return format, side effects, permissions, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool that may mutate or fetch external resources.

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 and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. It lacks structure and does not provide enough information to be genuinely useful. Conciseness is not a substitute for 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's overall behavior, how parameters relate to the Figma URL parsing, or what the expected result is. An agent cannot reliably 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no parameter context. Moreover, the schema parameters (city, feed, json, zone, etc.) appear unrelated to the stated purpose of parsing a Figma URL, creating confusion about which parameters are relevant and how they are used. The description does not compensate for this 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 verb ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), and adds that the path is discarded. However, it does not explain what parsing entails, what the output is, or how it differs from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or normalize-url. It is not a tautology, but it lacks sufficient detail to clearly distinguish it.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent would have no basis to decide between this and other '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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No disk access' but fails to mention return type, side effects, or that the tool likely validates other input types beyond paths (given the extra schema fields). This is insufficient for an agent to predict 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 concise (two short sentences) with no wasted words, but it's too sparse for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. It's not front-loaded with context about the full scope or return values, so conciseness 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?

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only addresses path checking, leaving the purpose of the other parameters unexplained. An agent would not know what to do with ref, url, city, etc., or what the tool returns. This is clearly incomplete for such a complex schema.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (every parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't even acknowledge the other parameters. The only addition, 'No disk access', is already present in the path parameter's schema description, so it adds no new 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 clearly states the tool checks whether a path looks safe and explicitly notes no disk access, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from URL-focused siblings by using 'path', but it doesn't mention that the schema also includes many other unrelated parameters, which could confuse an agent about the tool's true 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape. The description doesn't mention any selection criteria, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation (returning lat/long) without mentioning network dependencies, side effects, output format, or any constraints. The schema parameter descriptions hint at 'discarded after' behavior, but this is not surfaced in the description, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare operation.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is front-loaded and concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations. The brevity sacrifices necessary clarity, making it not appropriately sized for the complexity it should cover.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with the various inputs, what output to expect, or when to use it. An agent would lack critical information to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to any of the 9 parameters; it does not explain how city, query, or other inputs relate to generating coordinates. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description provides no extra value, leaving it at the baseline.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Latitude and longitude for a place') and a data source (Open-Meteo), giving a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like weather-hint or timezone, and the 9-parameter schema includes many seemingly unrelated inputs (ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) that are not explained by the description, 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between geo-hint and its many siblings. There is no reference to any other tool or a clear use case.

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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Parse owner and repo' but does not mention that the tool validates URL shape, ignores the other eight schema parameters (though their schema descriptions note they are 'discarded'), or describe the return format. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a tool that appears to be a validation/parsing utility.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable. It earns its place entirely without redundancy.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description explains only the narrow action of parsing owner/repo. It does not clarify why there are 8 unrelated parameters, whether the tool is a validation 'shape' check, or what the output looks like. For a tool with this complexity and no structured annotations, the description is incomplete and leaves an agent guessing about edge cases.

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

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

The schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the overall purpose. It implies 'url' is the key input, but the schema describes 'url' as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which is inconsistent with 'parse owner and repo'. The description does not help an agent understand how the other parameters relate to the main function.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('Parse owner and repo') on a specific resource ('GitHub URL'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'figma-url-shape' or 'jira-key-shape'. It directly tells the agent what the tool extracts, leaving no ambiguity about its primary 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for selection, or when to prefer another shape-checking sibling. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and description, which is insufficient for routing.

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 'Titles discarded,' which is vague and doesn't disclose network access, side effects, or whether the count is exact or estimated. The parameter schema mentions 'discarded after the shape check' for several fields, but the description doesn't explain the tool's overall behavior beyond counting.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential context about the parameters and the meaning of 'Titles discarded.' The structure doesn't aid comprehension.

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 grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain how the parameters influence the count, what the return value looks like, or any prerequisites. An agent would struggle to call 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 description coverage is 100%, with each of the 9 parameters individually described (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but since the schema already covers all parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: count Hacker News front-page stories. This is clear and distinct from sibling tools like web-fetch or fetch-status. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other counting tools (e.g., memory-key-count) but the target is specific.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (web-fetch, fetch-status, search-query-len, etc.). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it reveals nothing about side effects, return format, permissions, or limitations. The schema's many unrelated parameters (url, host, json, etc.) are not reconciled with the timezone theme, creating confusion rather than clarity.

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

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

The description is extremely brief, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It is a single fragment with no front-loading of critical constraints or usage context. Every sentence should earn its place, but here there is nothing to earn.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain which parameters are relevant, what the tool returns, or how it integrates with the sibling timezone tools. The agent cannot safely or correctly invoke it based on this description.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% so each parameter has a description, but the tool description adds no value beyond that. Worse, it misaligns with the schema: the description claims a focus on IANA timezone names, yet only one of nine parameters ('zone') relates to that; the others appear orthogonal, making the tool's true purpose ambiguous.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') that fails to state a specific action or resource. It does not say what the tool does (e.g., returns a list, validates a zone, converts time). It also does not differentiate from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', leaving the agent guessing.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling list is large and varied, but the description gives no hint 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, but it only says 'fetch' and 'return group counts only'. It omits that it is read-only, performs network access, discards parameters, or what 'group counts' means. The schema hints at parameter discarding, but the description adds no such 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, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. It lacks front-loaded critical details like the primary input parameter, meaning of 'group counts', or any usage caveats, making it too sparse to be effective.

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 output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain how to supply the robots.txt URL (via 'url' or 'host'?), what 'group counts' represents, or the tool's overall scope. An agent cannot reliably 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% and each parameter has a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds nothing about parameters; it does not even identify which parameter supplies the robots.txt URL, but the schema already documents each field, so the description need not repeat that.

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 robots.txt and returns group counts, giving a specific verb, resource, and output type. It distinguishes from generic fetch tools by the specific resource, though it doesn't reference the many unrelated input parameters.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like web-fetch, fetch-status, or domain-shape. It neither states the intended use case nor rules out alternatives, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. The phrase 'Key discarded' suggests the input is not retained, but it does not clarify which key, nor does it explain the return value, side effects, or error handling. For a shape-checking tool with zero annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits essential information such as the target parameter and expected output format. A well-structured description would front-load the key parameter and behavior, which this does not.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what input to provide and what result to expect. It does neither. The presence of many sibling tools further increases the need for explicit guidance, which is entirely absent. The description is incomplete for any practical use.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a basic description in the schema. However, the tool description adds no value beyond that and, critically, does not identify which parameter holds the Jira key. The schema entries like 'Git ref name' and 'City name' do not hint at a Jira key, so the agent cannot map the tool's purpose to any specific parameter. This undermines parameter semantics despite 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 action ('Check a Jira issue key shape') and resource (Jira key), which clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, it fails to identify which of the 9 input parameters contains the Jira key, leaving the agent uncertain about what to pass. This ambiguity lowers the clarity below what a specific verb+resource would normally earn.

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 like github-repo-shape or validate-json. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The description is a single sentence with no usage context, so the agent must infer applicability from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility. It only discloses that the body is discarded, which is a thin behavioral detail. It does not explain what happens with the various parameters, whether the tool performs network calls, validation, or normalization, or any side effects. The mismatch between the description and parameter semantics further obscures 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 one sentence, but its brevity is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It omits essential information about parameter usage, output, and context. The single sentence does not earn its place because it does not adequately describe the tool's behavior.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not specify which parameter(s) should be used for the stated purpose, what the HTTP status applies to, or how the other parameters are intended to be used. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the current definition.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but these descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'City name for a public weather hint' and 'IANA timezone name' have no evident relationship to 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL.' The descriptions add confusion rather than clarity, failing to explain how these parameters relate to the tool's core function.

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

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

The description states a verb ('HTTP status') and a resource ('public library docs URL'), but the 9 parameters cover weather, timezones, JSON validation, file paths, and search text—none of which align with that stated purpose. The tool's actual scope is unclear and potentially misleading; it does not distinguish from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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 siblings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. An agent has no basis to choose 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only discloses that values are discarded, but omits return format, error handling, side effects, or which parameter triggers the count. The schema's repeated 'discarded after the check' language adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 waste, but it is under-specified and not front-loaded with essential usage details. It is appropriately short but sacrifices substance, making it merely adequate.

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, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot determine which parameter to use, what the tool returns, or how it behaves on invalid input, making the definition insufficient for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and the 'json' parameter description mentions validation rather than counting, creating a mismatch. It neither clarifies nor undermines the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific action (count keys) and resource (JSON object), but does not specify which of the 9 schema parameters holds the JSON input. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json that also operate on JSON, leaving the agent to guess the intended parameter.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any directional cues among the many JSON-related siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that query and fragment are dropped, but it does not disclose that the tool also accepts and discards many unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, etc.) or what happens when multiple params are provided. The schema's per-param notes about 'discarded' are not reflected in the main description, so the actual behavior is opaque and potentially misleading.

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, front-loading the core action (return origin, host, path) and a key behavioral trait (drop query/fragment). It is concise and to the point, with no wasted words. However, the brevity contributes to the under-specification of the tool's actual scope.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only explains URL normalization. It does not clarify why parameters like city, feed, json, and zone exist, or what the tool does with them. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior or invoke it correctly for non-URL inputs. The description is incomplete for the actual complexity of the schema.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described. The description adds minimal semantic value by specifying that 'url' is normalized and that query/fragment are dropped, but it does not explain how the other parameters relate to the tool's purpose. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not fully compensate for the mismatch between its narrow purpose and the broad schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query/fragment. However, it does not mention the other seven parameters in the schema (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query), creating ambiguity about the tool's actual scope. It also doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any use cases, exclusions, or alternative tool names. An agent would have no basis to choose this over similar URL-related tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'No browser is launched' but does not state whether a network request is made, what side effects occur (e.g., caching, logging), or how the check is performed. The description is also inconsistent with the parameter list, which includes unrelated fields (city, feed, json, path, zone, query) that are not explained in the context of a URL check—this lacks transparency about the tool's actual scope.

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 front-loads the primary action and a key constraint. It contains no filler or redundancy. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing important context, which is a trade-off but still earns a high score for efficiency.

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

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

The tool is complex with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal context. It fails to explain the tool's full behavior, the purpose of the diverse parameters, the expected output, or how it differs from many siblings. This is significantly incomplete for an agent to call it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are individually documented. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning; it does not explain how these parameters relate to the stated URL check. The high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, but the description fails to clarify the surprising mix of parameters, leaving the agent to infer their role from the schema 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 action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a distinguishing trait ('No browser is launched'), which differentiates it from browser-based alternatives like browser-url-ok. However, 'can be opened' is somewhat vague—it doesn't specify whether this involves an HTTP request or merely URL format validation, 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?

The description gives a hint about when to use it (when you don't need a browser) but does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions. There is no clear guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like web-fetch or fetch-status, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Query discarded' but does not explain that the other parameters are also discarded after shape checks, nor does it clarify that the tool accepts many parameters but only uses the query. It also does not disclose read-only nature or side effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

The description is very concise at two sentences, with the core action front-loaded. There is no redundant content. However, given the tool's complexity (9 parameters), it might be overly terse, but conciseness itself is good.

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 inadequate. It does not explain the role of the 8 non-query parameters, nor does it describe the return value or behavior for missing inputs. An agent would struggle to understand how to use this tool correctly beyond the query length check.

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 with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Per the calibration baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate since the description does not compensate or enhance 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: 'Count characters in a search query.' This clearly identifies the primary function and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that check shape or validity. However, the presence of 8 other parameters in the schema is unexplained, which could confuse an agent 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without explicit direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'catalog' which implies read-only, but it does not disclose whether it makes network calls, what side effects exist, or how it handles the various input parameters. The parameter descriptions hint at shape-checking behavior, but the tool description fails to explain 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 sentence with no fluff, making it efficient. However, it is under-specified, which affects completeness rather than conciseness. The front-loading is minimal but appropriate for the little content it has.

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 provides no explanation of how these parameters are used, what the output looks like, or how it relates to the catalog. The lack of any behavioral or usage detail makes it severely incomplete for an agent to call 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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters; it does not explain why a catalog of status codes accepts URLs, city names, or timezones. The schema descriptions are self-contained but the tool-level description offers no extra context.

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 that the tool provides a catalog of common HTTP status codes, which is a specific resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'fetch-status' which likely retrieves a live status, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other catalog-like tools.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The purpose implies it could be used for reference, but nothing explicit is stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does explicitly state that the prompt is discarded. However, it does not mention that all schema parameters are effectively ignored, whether there are side effects, or what the returned template looks like. The schema hints at these behaviors, but the description itself only partially discloses them.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. 'Prompt discarded' is a necessary behavioral warning that earns its place. The structure is appropriately front-loaded and compact.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain how these parameters relate to the template or whether any arguments are needed. An agent cannot tell when to invoke this tool, what the three-step template consists of, or what the call will return. The description is too sparse for the complexity implied by the schema.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter-level detail. The schema does provide meaningful descriptions for each parameter, mostly indicating they are discarded after a check. The description neither enhances nor contradicts the schema, so it neither gains nor loses points.

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

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

The description states a specific action and result: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It also clarifies that the prompt is discarded, which distinguishes this from any generative or reasoning tool. It stops short of explaining what the template actually contains or why it exists, so it is clear but not fully specified.

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 many sibling tools. The description gives no context, no alternatives, and no conditions under which the tool should be called. 'Prompt discarded' is a behavioral note rather than a usage guideline.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It fails to state the output format, whether the time is returned in the given zone or converted, or how DST is handled. It also does not mention that all parameters except 'zone' are discarded. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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, short sentence that directly states the core function. There is zero filler or redundancy, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and a schema containing nine optional parameters (most of which are unrelated), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not specify return value structure, error behavior, or which parameters actually affect the result. An agent has no way to know the tool's true interface without guessing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description implicitly points to 'zone' but does not reinforce it. Given the high coverage, the baseline is 3; the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, and the presence of eight irrelevant parameters is not clarified by the description itself.

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: 'Current time in a named IANA timezone.' It implies a single timezone input and distinguishes itself from siblings like utc-time (current UTC) and iana-zones (list zones). However, it does not explicitly name the 'zone' parameter or clarify that the other eight schema parameters are irrelevant to this tool, which could cause minor confusion.

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 like iana-zones or utc-time. The description does not mention that only the 'zone' parameter should be supplied, nor does it exclude the other parameters. An agent must infer usage from the schema alone, which is not sufficient for routing.

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. It only states the output and gives no insight into how parameters are handled (e.g., ignored, validated, or discarded). There is no disclosure of side effects, prerequisites, or error behavior, which is a significant gap for a tool with a complex 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 concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified. It lacks essential context about the parameters and behavior, so it is not appropriately sized; it omits critical information rather than being efficiently brief.

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 incomplete. It fails to explain what the parameters are for, whether they are optional, how they affect the result, or any behavioral details. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the provided 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but the tool description adds no value in explaining their role. The parameter descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') suggest a multi-purpose validation tool, yet the description claims only a timestamp output, creating confusion. The description does not compensate for the schema's implicit complexity.

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

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

The description states 'Current UTC timestamp,' which clearly identifies the primary output. However, the input schema lists 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) with no explanation of how they relate to obtaining a timestamp, making the tool's purpose ambiguous in context. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'timezone' only implicitly.

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 'timezone' or 'iana-zones.' The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes 'The body is discarded,' implying no persistence, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or side effects. It also does not clarify how the many unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) are 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient and to the point with no wasted words.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error), why the other parameters exist, or any constraints. An agent would need to infer usage primarily from the schema, which is extensive but leaves the tool's overall behavior unclear.

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 individually documented. The description adds only 'The body is discarded,' which is redundant with the schema's 'discarded after the check' notes. It does not explain the relationship between parameters, such as which one is the 'body.'

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This is unambiguous about the tool's core function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling shape-check tools (e.g., file-path-ok, domain-shape), so an agent may need to infer its uniqueness from the name.

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

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

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to guess 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only states the output. It does not disclose that most parameters are discarded (as hinted in the schema descriptions), that a network call is made, that the city must be a known location, or what happens on failure. The discarding behavior is a significant trait not mentioned in the description.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified. It omits crucial details such as which parameter is used, output format, or error behavior. Conciseness without content 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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. An agent cannot reliably call this tool: it does not know which parameter to provide, what the return value looks like, or whether other parameters are needed. This is a serious 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?

The schema descriptions are 100% complete, but they are confusingly broad and often mention 'discarded' for parameters unrelated to weather. The description does not clarify that only 'city' is used, so the agent cannot determine which parameter actually drives the call. The description adds no meaningful clarification beyond the schema, and the schema itself is misaligned with 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 purpose: current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. However, the input schema includes nine parameters, most of which are unrelated to weather (e.g., git ref, URL, JSON, path). This creates ambiguity about what the tool actually does, so the core purpose is clear but the schema muddies it. It does distinguish from siblings like geo-hint, but not sharply.

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 which parameter is relevant, whether it is only for weather queries, or when to prefer it over sibling tools. The agent is left to infer from the name and 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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Body discarded' and the return type, but it fails to disclose that the tool accepts many non-URL parameters (city, zone, json, query, etc.) and discards most of them. The description misleadingly implies a simple URL fetch, contradicting the schema's 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 one short sentence with no fluff, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential details about the tool's actual scope and behavior.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with non-URL parameters, why they exist, or what the full output is. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly based on the 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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the description adds no parameter-level value. Worse, the description's focus on URL misrepresents the parameter set, giving an agent incorrect expectations about what inputs are relevant.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'HTTP status and content type for a public URL.' This is unambiguous about the primary action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which likely have overlapping purposes.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. No context about appropriate use cases, exclusions, or conditions is provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'Title discarded after the call,' which is an odd note given no parameter is clearly a title, and omits any mention of side effects, authentication, return format, or error behavior. The disclosure is minimal and partially misleading.

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 and technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks essential information about the primary input and expected usage, so the brevity is a liability, not a strength.

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 ones, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain which parameter to supply for the stated check, what the tool returns, or how it relates to the sibling tools, making it impossible for an agent to call correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but those descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint') and do not align with the stated Wikipedia-title purpose. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to identify which parameter should receive the title, creating a semantic gap.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' However, it does not map this purpose to any of the 9 input parameters, none of which appear to represent a Wikipedia title. The tool name reinforces the purpose, but the schema is unrelated, leaving the agent uncertain how to invoke it.

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. Sibling tools like browser-url-ok, domain-shape, and file-path-ok suggest a family of shape-checking tools, but the description offers no context on distinguishing this tool from them or on prerequisites for calling it.

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