Europe/Zagreb clock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that task text is discarded, which is a useful note, but it omits other behaviors like whether network calls are made, side effects, or error conditions. For a tool without annotations, this is insufficient disclosure.

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

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

The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about discarded task text is a valuable addition. Every word earns its place.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the role of the parameters, provide usage examples, or detail the output format. An agent would struggle to know which parameters to provide or what to expect from the call.

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 baseline would be 3, but the tool description adds no meaning to the parameters and in fact creates confusion: the parameters (city, json, path, etc.) seem unrelated to the stated purpose of finding a gateway. The description does not explain how these parameters contribute to the tool's function, so it fails to enhance 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it finds a specific public pay-per-call tool gateway called Monid and lists the returns (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are mostly shape-checkers or utilities, making the purpose unmistakable.

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

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of appropriate contexts. An agent must infer that it is used when information about Monid is needed, but no explicit 'when' or 'when not' 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 carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only reveals that no browser is launched, but does not state whether the tool performs a network request, what 'ok' means (HTTP 200? URL syntax?), or what side effects or side-stepping it might do. It also entirely ignores the nine parameters, several of which are described as 'discarded' in the schema, creating a disconnect between the description and the actual inputs.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no redundant filler. It front-loads the core action and adds a key distinction. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity contributes to the lack of completeness on other dimensions.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret a positive or negative result, or why it accepts unrelated parameters. The description's focus on URL while the schema includes many other input types creates a significant gap that an agent cannot resolve without external knowledge. More details on the return value and parameter relationships are essential.

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 themselves are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it doesn't even mention them, which is odd given that the tool name and description focus solely on URLs while the schema includes unrelated fields like city, zone, and query. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description could have clarified which parameters are relevant to the URL check.

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

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

The description states a clear verb ('Check') and resource ('a URL can be opened'), and the 'No browser is launched' clause distinguishes it from sibling playwright-url-ok, which presumably does launch a browser. However, it doesn't clarify whether 'can be opened' means a network request or just a URL shape check, leaving some ambiguity about its exact function compared to tools like fetch-status or normalize-url.

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

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

The description offers a single negative clue ('No browser is launched') that hints at when not to use it (when a full browser render is needed), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like fetch-status or normalize-url, nor does it give any context for its many non-URL parameters. There is no clear 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' guidance.

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

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

The description claims arithmetic evaluation, but the schema has no parameter to supply an expression. This is a direct contradiction between the description and the schema's parameter set. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to disclose what happens to the input parameters, what the tool returns, or any side effects. The phrase 'Expression discarded' suggests an expression is input, but no such parameter exists.

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 plus a fragment), which is good, but it lacks substance. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information, and the second clause ('Expression discarded') is confusing given the schema. Conciseness is not the issue; the content is insufficient.

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 completely inadequate. It fails to explain why these parameters exist, how to use them, what the tool returns, or any edge cases. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the given 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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. However, the tool description does not explain how any of these parameters relate to arithmetic evaluation. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, and actually introduces a false expectation about an 'expression' parameter. The description does not help an agent understand how to use the 9 parameters for 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 clear purpose ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic'), but it does not align with the actual input schema, which contains parameters like URL, city, timezone, and JSON. This creates confusion about what the tool actually does, and there is no differentiation from sibling tools, which are all URL/timezone/validation oriented.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no idea when calc-eval is the right choice over other tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful constraint, but it omits other important behaviors implied by the schema, such as 'no disk access' for the path parameter and the fact that many inputs are 'discarded after the check.' It does not mention whether the tool makes network calls for each input type, what happens with invalid inputs, or any authorization/rate-limit implications. The description is too thin to inform an agent about the tool's side effects and constraints.

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 with the core action. However, it is under-specified relative to the tool's apparent complexity (9 parameters). The brevity is not a virtue here because it omits critical information about the tool's full behavior. It is appropriately short in word count but not in informational completeness, so it does not earn a high score for structure.

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 severely incomplete. It only covers URL-related functionality and ignores the other parameters entirely. An agent would not know how to invoke the tool correctly for non-URL inputs, nor what to expect as output. The absence of output schema and annotations makes the description the only source of context, and it fails to provide adequate guidance.

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 already documented with a short description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic value for the parameters—it only mentions 'URL' generically without specifying that the 'url' parameter is the one used. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding 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 action (return host, scheme, HTTP status) for a URL, which gives a clear verb and resource. However, the input schema lists 9 parameters with varied purposes (city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.) that are not mentioned at all. This creates ambiguity about the tool's actual scope—whether it is exclusively URL-related or handles multiple input types. It partially distinguishes from siblings like 'normalize-url' and 'fetch-status' but does not clarify its relationship to the many shape-check tools in the sibling list.

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. Sibling tools such as 'normalize-url', 'fetch-status', 'browser-url-ok', and 'validate-json' likely overlap in function, but the description offers no exclusions or conditions. An agent cannot decide whether to pick this tool over a sibling without inspecting their schemas and behavior independently.

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. It only discloses that 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy note, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects might occur, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs multiple checks.

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, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. It front-loads a privacy note but omits essential functional information. For a tool with nine parameters, this is far too sparse.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 28 sibling tools, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot decide when to use this tool versus, for example, validate-json or timezone. There is no mention of output format, success criteria, or error behavior.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a basic explanation. However, the tool description adds no meaning beyond that: it doesn't explain how the nine optional parameters relate, whether they are alternatives or mutually exclusive, or what 'classification' means for each. The agent cannot determine which parameter to supply without additional guidance.

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

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

The description says 'Show how this request is classified' but never defines what classification means or what kind of request it handles. The tool name 'compatibility' doesn't help. It is not a tautology but remains too vague to distinguish from siblings like validate-json or search-query-len.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It doesn't mention which parameters to provide under what circumstances, nor any alternative tools. The agent is left to guess the intended 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'split a hostname into labels' and 'without WHOIS or ownership data' – it does not disclose how it handles the other eight parameters, whether it validates them, what it returns, or any side effects. The parameter descriptions mention 'discarded after the check', but the tool description itself omits this, leaving behavior largely opaque.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient and wastes no words, though it is perhaps too terse to convey the tool's full scope. Structurally, it is acceptable for a short utility.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain which parameters are relevant to the stated purpose, how the tool behaves for non-hostname inputs, what the output looks like, or any edge cases. The agent has almost no guidance for correct invocation, making the tool nearly unusable based on this 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. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only refers to hostname splitting, while the schema already documents each field's purpose. Since coverage is full, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not compensate or enrich parameter semantics.

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 primary action: splitting a hostname into labels, and explicitly disclaims WHOIS/ownership data. This distinguishes it from URL-normalizing siblings like normalize-url, though it does not mention that the tool also accepts many unrelated parameters, which could confuse the 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It only notes what it does not do (no WHOIS/ownership), but doesn't mention sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, nor does it state any conditions for selecting this tool. The lack of exclusionary or alternative guidance leaves the agent to guess.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the basic HEAD request and status return, but omits critical details: side effects, rate limits, handling of the other 8 parameters (which are described as 'discarded' in the schema but not in the tool description), or whether the tool performs network calls for all input types. This is a significant transparency gap.

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

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

The description is a single, grammatically correct sentence, which is efficient. However, it is overly terse and lacks any structure to convey the multi-parameter nature of the tool. It does not front-load the most important information for all use cases, and the brevity detracts from usefulness.

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 annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It only addresses one of the many apparent capabilities and provides no information about return values, error handling, or prerequisites. An agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke the tool for non-URL inputs.

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

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

The schema provides 100% coverage with per-parameter descriptions, so a baseline of 3 is warranted. However, the tool description adds no parameter guidance and actively misleads by implying only 'url' is relevant, while the schema reveals many other possible inputs. This could cause an agent to ignore the other parameters or misuse them. The description fails to add value beyond the schema and may even confuse.

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 performs an HTTP HEAD request on a public URL and returns only the status. However, the schema lists 9 distinct parameters (city, feed, json, zone, etc.) suggesting the tool supports many other status-check operations beyond URLs. The description covers only the URL case, making the full purpose ambiguous and potentially misleading for non-URL inputs.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., web-fetch, normalize-url, browser-url-ok). There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and schema alone, which is insufficient.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the path is discarded, which is a useful behavioral note, but it says nothing about the other parameters—many of which also appear to be 'discarded' (e.g., 'ref' description says 'discarded after the shape check', 'json' says 'discarded after the check'). The description only discloses one discard while the schema implies others, creating an incomplete picture. It also doesn't state what the tool returns or what constitutes a successful parse.

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

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

The description is very short (two sentences, nine words) with no fluff. It front-loads the main action and includes one key detail (path discarded). However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary information for conciseness. The structure is clean, but the brevity contributes to the lack 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It only addresses Figma URL parsing and discarding the path, but completely fails to explain the other parameters, the overall purpose (generic shape validation), expected return values, or error behavior. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool for non-Figma inputs or even fully understand the Figma case 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 each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies the 'url' parameter is the main input, but it doesn't elaborate on the meaning or relationship of the other eight parameters. Since the schema already fully describes each parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have clarified that this is a multi-purpose shape checker rather than focusing solely on Figma.

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 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' which gives a specific verb and resource, but the input schema reveals 9 unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) that have nothing to do with Figma URLs. This suggests the tool is actually a generic shape-checker for many input types, but the description misleadingly narrows its scope to Figma alone. An agent reading this would be confused about what the tool actually does beyond the Figma case.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-check tools (e.g., domain-shape, github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape). The description does not mention alternatives, conditions for selection, or any context like 'Use this to validate Figma URL format.' It leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and description, which is insufficient given the broad schema.

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

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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'No disk access,' which is useful. But with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what 'safe' means, what the return value is, whether other parameters are validated, or any side effects beyond the path check. This is a significant gap for a tool that accepts 9 diverse inputs.

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

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

The description is very concise – two sentences – but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. It front-loads the path check but omits any mention of the other accepted inputs, making it too terse to be useful. Conciseness is not a virtue when critical information is missing.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It only addresses one aspect (path safety) and gives no indication of the tool's broader purpose, return format, or how to handle the other parameters. An agent cannot reliably invoke 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 description coverage is 100% – every parameter has a description in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the path check. Since the schema fully documents each parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. However, the description does not clarify how the 'path' parameter relates to the other fields, leaving the overall semantics 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 states a specific action: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' However, the input schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) with no mention in the description. This creates a mismatch: an agent would assume this tool only handles file paths, but it actually appears to be a generic shape-checking tool. The description is misleading 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any of its 26 siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over others like 'domain-shape' or 'browser-url-ok'. The description gives zero usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the output type and data source, but says nothing about side effects, authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens with invalid input. The phrase 'via Open-Meteo' hints at an external API call but does not disclose any operational details.

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

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

The description is a single sentence and very concise, with no fluff. However, it is under-specified; it front-loads the output but omits essential input guidance. Being concise is good, but here it sacrifices necessary detail, so it earns a mid-range 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameter to provide, what the response format is, or any constraints. The tool's complexity demands far more explanation than a single sentence; this is inadequate for correct usage.

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

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

While the schema has 100% description coverage for each parameter, those descriptions are unrelated to the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' for 'ref'). The tool description does not explain how any parameter maps to obtaining latitude and longitude, so it adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema's already confusing text.

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 output (latitude and longitude) and the source (Open-Meteo), so it's not a tautology. However, it fails to specify how the place is identified—the schema has many unrelated parameters (ref, url, feed, host, etc.) with no guidance on which to use, making the tool's actual purpose ambiguous. It also does not distinguish it from siblings like 'weather-hint' or 'timezone'.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or which parameter to supply. An agent has to guess which input is appropriate for getting latitude/longitude, and there is no reference to sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The one-liner only says it 'parses' but gives no information about return values, side effects, how it handles the various parameters, or what happens with non-GitHub inputs. The agent has no idea what to expect.

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 severely under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. It is not efficient conciseness; it is under-specification that omits essential context about the tool's 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the overall purpose, how to use it, or what the agent can expect, leaving the agent without enough information 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and actively misleads by implying the 'url' parameter is the sole focus. It fails to explain that the tool likely processes only one of the parameters at a time or that it is polymorphic, so it does not help the agent understand how to pass parameters correctly.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL'), but the input schema includes fields for city, JSON, timezone, search, etc., indicating the tool is actually a generic parser/validator for many input types. This is misleading and does not represent the tool's real scope, nor does it distinguish it from siblings like domain-shape or figma-url-shape.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools with similar 'shape' names. The single sentence implies GitHub URL parsing, but the schema suggests a broad multi-purpose tool, so the agent receives no direction about which context calls for this tool or when to choose an alternative.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies network fetching ('Count current Hacker News front-page stories') but does not disclose network dependency, potential latency, failure modes, or what the output looks like. 'Titles discarded' hints at internal behavior but is vague and does not explain the overall 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 short sentence, which is concise and free of fluff. However, it is too terse to be actionable; it omits essential invocation details. Being concise is positive, but under-specification reduces its value, so it merits a middle 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?

With 9 optional parameters, no required ones, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too brief to allow correct invocation. An agent has no way to know what parameter to provide, what the return value is, or what the tool actually does with the input. This is a severe gap for a tool with this complexity.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic and appear copied from unrelated tools (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). None of them explain how they map to counting Hacker News stories. The tool description adds no parameter meaning, so an agent would not know which parameter to use or what each one does in 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' This is distinct from sibling tools, which mostly deal with URL checks, validation, or time/weather lookups. However, it does not specify what input it expects or how it relates to the parameters, so it is clear but not fully self-contained.

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. It does not mention which parameter to pass, whether it is a replacement for web-fetch or fetch-status, or any conditions that would make it preferable. The description offers no exclusions or use-case 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 disclose behavior, but it only names timezone names. It does not mention side effects, return format, or any operational details. This is a severe gap for a tool with 9 parameters.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks essential information and does not front-load any actionable 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a vague one-sentence description, an agent cannot determine what the tool returns, what inputs are required, or how to use it correctly. The description is completely inadequate for a tool with 9 optional parameters.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but the tool description does not explain how these parameters relate to the stated purpose. The description mentions timezone names but parameters include 'ref', 'url', 'city', etc., creating confusion about which are relevant. The description adds no clarifying value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') with no verb indicating an action. It does not state whether the tool lists, validates, or returns timezone names, and it does not differentiate from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it fetches and returns group counts but gives no information about side effects, access requirements, or what happens when the nine parameters are supplied. The description also contradicts the schema by implying a single purpose (robots.txt) while the schema allows many unrelated inputs, which is a transparency gap.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. It avoids unnecessary filler, though it could benefit from a few more words to clarify parameter usage without becoming verbose.

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

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

The tool has nine parameters, none required, and no output schema. The description is too minimal to explain how these parameters relate to the core action. It doesn't clarify which parameters are used for the robots.txt fetch (e.g., is 'url' the target?), nor does it explain what 'group counts' means or how results are structured. For such a complex tool, the description is incomplete and would leave an agent guessing about correct usage.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is individually documented (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access'). The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already provides adequate semantics. Given the high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither improves nor detracts from the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the core action: 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.' This is a specific verb and resource, so an agent knows the primary function. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch, which also fetch URLs, and it doesn't mention that the tool accepts many unrelated parameters, which could confuse an agent about what it actually 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools. The description is purely declarative, so an agent has no information about when this is the right choice over fetch-status, web-fetch, or domain-shape.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the key is discarded (a privacy trait), but does not state the operation's safety (read-only vs mutation), the return format, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations and a simple validation purpose, 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 extremely short and front-loaded with the purpose, with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple check operation, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. The structure is clean, but the terseness contributes to incompleteness.

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

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

With nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotation coverage, the description is grossly inadequate. It omits any indication of expected output, how to select the correct parameter, or how this differs from sibling shape tools. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a generic description, but the tool description fails to map the purpose to any specific parameter. It never says which of the nine fields (ref, url, city, etc.) is the Jira key, so the agent cannot know which input to supply. The schema alone is insufficient, and the description adds no bridging 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 the shape of a Jira issue key, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools by name. However, the parameter list includes nine generic fields with no obvious Jira key parameter, which creates ambiguity about which input actually holds the key. The statement is clear about intent but not about the connection to the schema.

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 its many siblings (domain-shape, github-repo-shape, etc.). It does not mention any prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusion criteria. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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

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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'Body discarded', which is minimal. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, safety, or return behavior, and it fails to do so. It does not state whether it is read-only, what errors occur, or what the response contains.

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, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks essential information about the tool's broad applicability and return format, so brevity is not a virtue here.

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 critically incomplete. An agent cannot determine what inputs to provide, what the tool does with them, or what the result will be. The description fails to provide even a minimal mental model of the tool's behavior.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. However, the tool description adds no value by referencing or clarifying any of these parameters. It does not explain which parameter relates to 'public library docs URL' or how the parameters are used together. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents parameters, but the description offers no semantic enhancement.

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 (HTTP status) but restricts it to 'public library docs URL', while the input schema accepts 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.). This creates confusion about the tool's actual scope and does not differentiate it from sibling tools 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., domain-shape, validate-json, weather-hint). The description mentions no alternatives, no conditions, and no exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does reveal one useful behavior: values are discarded, so only keys matter. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid JSON, or what the response contains.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the 'Values discarded' detail adds useful information. It is appropriately compact for the simple operation it names.

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 required arguments, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not specify which parameter to pass, what the return value looks like, or how errors are handled, so an agent cannot confidently construct a valid 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are not aligned with the stated purpose: the only JSON-related parameter is described as 'JSON text to validate', and the other eight optional strings seem unrelated. The description gives no hint about which parameter contains the JSON object whose keys are counted, leaving the schema confusing.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Count keys in a JSON object') and adds a meaningful qualifier ('Values discarded'). It is clear what the tool computes, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like validate-json or domain-shape.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from the name and one-line description alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful. However, it does not disclose that the other eight parameters in the schema are effectively ignored or used for unrelated checks, which could mislead an agent into thinking they affect URL normalization. This is a significant transparency gap.

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

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

The description is two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and the key behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use the other parameters, why they exist, or how the return value is structured. An agent cannot confidently call this tool based on the description alone, especially given the confusing schema with many discarded parameters.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only mentions 'a URL' generically. It does not explicitly identify the 'url' parameter as the primary input, which is a minor omission. Given high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), and explicitly notes that query and fragment are dropped. This is clear and specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling URL tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, so it loses one point.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. The sibling list includes multiple URL-related tools, but the description gives no context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only discloses that no browser is launched, but not whether it performs an HTTP request, DNS check, or just shape validation. The schema hints that many parameters are 'discarded after the shape check,' suggesting this may be a shape-only check, but the description does not clarify this behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and the key differentiator (no browser). It is appropriately short for the level of detail provided.

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 what the tool returns, how it behaves with different parameters (e.g., does it always check only the 'url' parameter, or also others?), or when to use it. It is under-specified 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% with each parameter having a description, so the schema already documents the parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate, though the schema descriptions themselves are somewhat odd (e.g., url 'to normalize or cite') and could mislead.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool checks whether a URL can be opened, and explicitly adds 'No browser is launched,' which distinguishes it from the sibling 'browser-url-ok.' However, it doesn't mention the 9 parameters, which are mostly unrelated to URL checking, potentially confusing the 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The 'No browser is launched' line implies a lighter-weight check, but it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Query discarded,' which vaguely implies no retention, but does not clarify whether other parameters are ignored, validated, or used, nor does it describe the return value or side effects. This is severely insufficient.

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

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

The description is concise with only two sentences and no filler words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the behavior for non-query parameters, the output format, error conditions, or whether validation occurs. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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

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

While the schema provides 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema states. It fails to identify which parameter is the 'search query' or explain how the other parameters relate to the operation, potentially misleading the agent into thinking all are required or relevant.

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

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

The description states a specific action (count characters) and a resource (search query), but it is ambiguous which parameter corresponds to the query given the schema has 9 unrelated parameters. It also fails to distinguish from sibling shape-checker tools, as the name suggests a length operation but the schema includes fields like url, city, and zone with no explanation of their role.

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without direction for selection among many similar validation tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, return format, or what happens with the parameters. It doesn't even acknowledge that parameters are discarded (as the schema suggests). The description is silent on all behavioral aspects.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence), which is technically concise, but it lacks structure and substance. It is under-specified rather than efficiently compact. The single sentence does not front-load any useful operational detail.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain how to call the tool, what it returns, or why the parameters exist. An agent cannot infer correct usage from 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and in fact the schema's per-parameter descriptions are more informative than the tool description. The description fails to explain how these parameters relate to HTTP status codes, but per the rule, high coverage grants a baseline 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 is a noun phrase, not a verb+resource. It says 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' but does not state what action the tool performs or how it relates to the nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, etc.). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or domain-shape. The purpose is ambiguous and does not clarify the operation.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of context, exclusions, or when not to use it. The single sentence provides no decision support for an agent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states that the prompt is discarded, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not clarify whether the output is always identical, what the template contains, or if there are any side effects. It is minimal but not 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 extremely concise: two short sentences. It front-loads the primary action and includes the essential 'Prompt discarded' detail. It is efficient, though it could arguably be longer to provide more context.

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

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

The tool has many parameters but all are optional and discarded, so the simplicity is justified. However, the description does not specify what the three-step template looks like or its format, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent. Given no output schema, a bit more detail on the returned template would improve completeness.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all nine parameters, each explicitly noting it is discarded. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load.

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

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

The description states a clear action and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from any particular one. The verb 'return' and the resource 'three-step thinking template' make the purpose understandable.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The 'Prompt discarded' line hints that input is irrelevant, but it does not explain scenarios for invoking the tool or when to avoid it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it provides only a bare statement of function. It does not mention what happens with invalid zones, DST handling, or the response format, leaving significant uncertainty about tool behavior.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence, which is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but it fails to structure information to compensate for the noisy schema. It is not overlong, but it is too minimal to guide the agent effectively.

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 (many irrelevant parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools with overlapping functionality), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify which parameter to use, what the output looks like, or how it differs from utc-time and iana-zones, leaving critical gaps 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema includes nine parameters, eight of which are irrelevant to the tool's purpose. The description does not specify that only 'zone' is used, and the schema descriptions for irrelevant fields are generic and confusing. The description adds no meaningful parameter guidance beyond the schema's already misleading information.

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 (returns current time) and resource (named IANA timezone), distinguishing it from siblings like utc-time (UTC only) and iana-zones (list zones). However, it does not explicitly clarify that the only relevant parameter is 'zone', leaving room for misinterpretation given the schema's many unrelated fields.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. The description does not mention conditions or exclusions, forcing the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Current UTC timestamp' and does not reveal that all input parameters are discarded or that the tool performs no meaningful processing of them. This is a significant omission that could mislead an agent into passing unnecessary data.

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 at one sentence, but it is under-specified. It does not earn its place because it fails to convey critical information about the tool's actual behavior or its parameters. It is terse but not effectively informative.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent has no idea why the parameters exist, what they are for, or that they are ignored. This is far below the minimum viable description for a tool with this complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents each parameter and notes they are discarded. The description does not compensate further, 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 clear action: returns the current UTC timestamp. It is a specific verb+resource and not a tautology. However, it does not explain why the tool accepts nine parameters, which muddies the overall purpose for an agent.

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 siblings like timezone or iana-zones. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description provides zero usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says it retrieves temperature via Open-Meteo, but does not disclose that the tool appears to handle other hint types (based on schema), whether it makes external network calls, or what the response format is. The description contradicts the schema's hint of multi-purpose behavior.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence with no fluff, which is concise, but it omits essential context and is not adequately structured to convey the tool's actual complexity. It is under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the different hint modes, the external dependency on Open-Meteo, or how to choose parameters. An agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the current description.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but the tool description only mentions 'city' and does not explain the role of the other eight parameters. The descriptions in the schema suggest each is used for a different kind of hint, yet the tool description implies a weather-only function, leaving agents confused about which parameter to use for what.

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 function ('Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo'), but the input schema contains nine parameters, most of which are unrelated to weather (e.g., 'url', 'json', 'path', 'zone'). This makes the actual scope ambiguous and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'geo-hint' 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of the multiple parameter-specific behaviors implied by the schema (e.g., shape checks, normalization), nor any exclusions or conditions for weather lookups.

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 that the body is discarded and that the output is HTTP status and content type, but it does not describe what happens for non-URL parameters, error handling, rate limits, or authentication. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is minimal transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, two sentences with no waste. However, it is under-specified for the complexity of the tool. While conciseness is achieved, the lack of detail about the other parameters makes it less effective than a slightly longer, more informative 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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It only explains the core URL behavior and discards body, but does not cover how the other parameters are processed, what the response format is, or when to use the tool. An agent would have insufficient context to correctly invoke it.

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 each parameter, and the tool description adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate to the main purpose. The description does not clarify why parameters like 'ref' or 'city' exist for a web-fetch tool, leaving the semantic connection 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'HTTP status and content type for a public URL.' That is clear for the main action. However, the presence of 9 unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, etc.) in the schema contradicts the narrow scope, making the tool's actual purpose ambiguous. It does not differentiate 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 alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be preferred. The description is purely declarative with no context about use cases.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the title is discarded after the call, which hints at statelessness, but does not mention whether network access occurs, whether any side effects exist, what happens on failure, or if any authentication is needed. This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs an external lookup.

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 at one sentence, which is positive for brevity, but it omits essential information such as how to supply the title and what the expected behavior is. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, so it does not earn a higher score.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. An agent has no idea which parameter to populate to check a Wikipedia title, nor what the tool returns or what side effects to expect. This is a critical gap for a tool that appears to be a specialized checker among many similar ones.

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

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

While schema coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description), those descriptions are generic and unrelated to the tool's purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check', 'City name for a public weather hint'). The tool description does not clarify which parameter holds the Wikipedia title, and none of the parameter names suggest it. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, and the schema itself is misleading relative to the stated 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 clear verb and resource: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' This is unambiguous about the core action. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'browser-url-ok' or 'search-query-len' that might also involve URL or text validation, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'validate-json', 'file-path-ok'). The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions that would lead an agent to select this tool over others.

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