Indian/Maldives clock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'Task text discarded' and that it returns specific items, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, makes external network calls, or has any side effects. It also does not clarify which of the nine parameters are actually used versus discarded, leaving the behavior largely opaque. For a tool that appears to be a gateway lookup, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway') and then adds key outputs and a behavioral note. There is no wasted wording, and it is easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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

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

Despite having nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides very little context. It does not specify which parameters are required or relevant, what the returned data structure looks like, or how the gateway is found. An agent would struggle to know what inputs to provide and what to expect in response. The tool seems to accept many parameters that are discarded, but the description does not clarify this, making it incomplete for 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning; it only mentions that 'Task text discarded' without mapping to any parameters. It does not explain how the parameters like 'url', 'city', or 'query' relate to the gateway lookup. The schema already documents each parameter, so the description does not significantly 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: 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid).' It identifies the specific resource (Monid gateway) and action (find), and distinguishes it from the diverse sibling tools by its unique focus on pay-per-call gateways. The mention of specific outputs (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops) further clarifies its 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?

The description implies usage when a pay-per-call gateway (Monid) is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no direct comparisons or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool's name and purpose. The sibling list includes many unrelated tools, so no clear alternative is named.

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 behavioral disclosure. It states 'No browser is launched,' which is a useful trait, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., network requests), permissions, rate limits, or what 'can be opened' means operationally. The schema hints at 'discarded after' for many parameters, but the description itself is silent on such 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, front-loading the core action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') followed by a clarifying note. There is no fluff or redundancy. However, it may be too terse given the tool's apparent complexity, but conciseness itself is well handled.

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 annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the tool's full scope, return values, or when to use it. The single-sentence description fails to provide any context for the diverse parameters, making the tool nearly unusable for an agent without further investigation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a meaning (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The parameters themselves are confusing given the URL-only description, but the schema does document them.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened'), but the input schema includes nine unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, json, zone, etc.), implying the tool handles far more than URLs. This mismatch makes the actual purpose ambiguous and potentially misleading, especially given sibling tools that focus on specific resource types.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like playwright-url-ok, web-fetch, or fetch-status. The only differentiator is the phrase 'No browser is launched,' which hints at a non-browser check but does not explain when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use 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 provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. The only behavioral statement is 'Expression discarded,' which is cryptic and does not clarify side effects, permissions, return values, or what happens to the input parameters. For a tool with such a vague description, this is severely inadequate.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and does not convey essential information. It front-loads a purpose that contradicts the schema, making the brevity counterproductive.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description must provide context on how parameters are used, what the evaluation does, and what the caller should expect. The description is wholly inadequate, leaving an agent with no way to correctly invoke the tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% in that every parameter has a schema description, but the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) appear unrelated to the stated arithmetic purpose, and the description does not explain their role or how they relate to evaluation. It adds no value over the schema and fails to resolve the mismatch.

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

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

The description states 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic,' which is a clear verb+resource, but the input schema contains nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) that have no relation to arithmetic expressions. There is no parameter for the expression itself, making the stated purpose incompatible with the actual schema. The purpose is stated but misleading.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (weather-hint, normalize-url, validate-json, etc.). The description provides no context for which scenarios this tool fits, nor does it mention any exclusions or 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that page content is not stored, which is a positive note, but it omits that most parameters are discarded after checks (as indicated in the schema), potential side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The description is too brief 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 very concise, with two sentences and no fluff. The core action is front-loaded. However, it may be too terse given the tool's complexity, but as a standalone statement it is efficient and clear.

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 does not explain the role of each parameter relative to the URL, which parameter is actually used, or what happens with the others. The single-sentence description leaves too much ambiguity for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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

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

The input schema provides 100% description coverage, so each parameter is individually documented. The description adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate to the main purpose. For instance, it does not clarify that 'url' is the primary input and others are auxiliary or discarded. Baseline 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: return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. This is clear and identifies the core resource (a URL). However, it does not differentiate from many siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, and the name 'citation' is misleading. Still, the purpose is adequately conveyed.

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 numerous sibling tools (e.g., fetch-status, browser-url-ok, normalize-url). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy note, but it does not reveal whether the tool reads data, performs mutations, requires auth, or what side effects it might have. The behavior of 'classification' is completely opaque.

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

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

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the (vague) purpose and adds a useful privacy note. While the content is unhelpful, the structure is appropriately compact and the second sentence adds distinct information, so it earns a high score on conciseness.

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

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

The tool accepts 9 diverse parameters (URL, city, JSON, path, zone, query, etc.) with no output schema and no annotations. The description provides zero guidance on how these parameters are used, what the classification output looks like, or what distinguishes this tool from the many specialized siblings. It is severely incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any information about parameters beyond the schema, but that is acceptable given high coverage. No contradictions or misleading hints are present.

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—'classified' is undefined and doesn't specify a concrete action or resource. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like browser-url-ok or geo-hint, which each have clear domain-specific purposes. The name 'compatibility' hints at a check, but the description fails to articulate that.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus the many siblings. It provides no context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving an agent without any guidance on selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one limitation (no WHOIS/ownership data) but omits critical behavior: what the tool returns, how the input parameters are processed, whether any data is discarded (hinted at by some parameter descriptions but not in the tool description), and any side effects. For a tool with 9 parameters, 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and the key limitation. However, it is perhaps too terse to be fully useful; still, for conciseness and structure, it scores well.

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, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to indicate which parameter is the primary input (hostname), how other parameters are used, or what the expected output is. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool based solely on the description. The schema covers parameters, but the overall tool behavior remains underspecified.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, with full coverage the baseline is 3, and since the description does not supplement or clarify the parameters (e.g., which one is the hostname), it stays at 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 specific action ('split a hostname into labels') and includes a distinguishing caveat ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). It is clear enough to differentiate from generic URL tools, though it could more explicitly contrast with sibling shape tools like normalize-url or github-repo-shape. The verb and resource are specific, earning a 4 rather than 5 due to slight ambiguity between 'domain' and 'hostname'.

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 shape/check tools (e.g., figma-url-shape, jira-key-shape, normalize-url). The description gives no context for selecting it, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions making a HEAD request and returning status, but the schema implies many parameters are only shape-checked and discarded, with no side effects. There is no disclosure of what actually happens for each parameter type, no mention of network access vs. local validation, and no information about return values beyond 'status only'.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but it omits almost all essential context. This is not effective conciseness; it is a truncation of necessary information.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how parameters interact, what 'status only' means for non-URL inputs, what the return format is, or when each parameter is appropriate. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds no parameter semantics, but the schema's own descriptions are present. However, the schema descriptions are cryptic ('discarded after the shape check') and the main description's focus on URL may mislead an agent into thinking only url is relevant. Since the rule allows baseline 3 for high coverage, this is retained.

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 claims a single narrow purpose ('HEAD a public URL and return status only'), but the input schema reveals nine distinct parameter types (URL, city, JSON, path, timezone, query, etc.) each described as being 'discarded after the check' or similar. This is misleading and does not convey the tool's actual multi-purpose validation nature. It fails to differentiate from siblings like browser-url-ok or web-fetch.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the 25 siblings. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent would have no way to know this tool is appropriate for validating a timezone name or a JSON document.

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 'Path discarded,' which is a minor behavioral detail, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, error behavior, or any side effects. For a tool that presumably checks URL shape, the lack of return-value information 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—two fragments—but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not front-load key information like expected inputs or outputs. Every word is wasted because it conveys almost nothing actionable. A good concise description would still be informative; this is merely 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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 9 parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, what conditions trigger success or failure, or how the parameters relate to the Figma URL parsing. An agent has almost no information to call it correctly. This is far below the minimum viable 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description does not add meaning to the parameters. It mentions 'Figma file URL' but does not specify which of the 9 parameters corresponds to that URL (presumably 'url' but the schema describes it as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' which is generic). The other parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) appear unrelated to Figma, creating confusion. The description fails to clarify parameter roles or how they map to the tool's 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 verb ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), which distinguishes it from generic URL tools, but it is vague about the outcome—what does parsing return? It also doesn't clarify how it differs from siblings like 'normalize-url' or 'browser-url-ok' beyond the Figma specificity. The phrase 'Path discarded' hints at behavior but leaves the main purpose unclear.

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 when to prefer it over sibling URL-shape tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description offers zero context for an agent to decide when this is the right 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'No disk access,' which is a useful safety trait, but it fails to explain what 'safe' means, what the return value is, or how failures are handled. It also does not address why the schema contains nine parameters when the description focuses only on 'path,' 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 extremely concise with no fluff: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and a critical behavioral note. It earns points for efficiency, though it may be too terse given the tool's apparent complexity with multiple parameters.

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 explains only the 'path' aspect. It does not describe what the tool returns, how to interpret the result, why the other parameters exist, or what 'looks safe' means. This is critically incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly, especially given the mismatch between the description and the broad parameter set.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not clarify the role of the non-path parameters or how they relate to the stated purpose. Per the baseline for high coverage, 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 clearly states the tool checks whether a path looks safe, with the key clarification that it performs no disk access. This is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or domain-shape, though the name 'file-path-ok' strongly implies 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where it should be preferred or excluded, nor does it reference sibling tools. The 'No disk access' hint implies it is a safe, non-invasive check, but there is no explicit 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that most parameters are discarded after shape checks, does not describe return format, error behavior, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with many 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 concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It under-specifies rather than being efficiently concise; there is no front-loading of key constraints or usage hints. Conciseness is not a substitute for necessary information.

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

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

Given nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine the correct parameter to pass, what the result will look like, or when this tool is appropriate. This is a critical completeness failure.

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 documents each parameter's meaning, but the description adds nothing about which parameter is the primary input for geocoding. It fails to tie the parameters together or clarify that only 'city' or 'query' might be relevant, leaving the agent confused about how to invoke the tool.

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

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

The description states the tool resolves a place to latitude and longitude via Open-Meteo, giving a clear verb and resource. However, it does not indicate which of the nine parameters identifies the place, and it lacks any differentiation from sibling hint tools like weather-hint or lib-docs-hint.

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 expected inputs or context, and no exclusions. The description is a single declarative sentence with no actionable usage information.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. The description only states the core parse operation. It does not mention what happens to the many other schema parameters (e.g., city, feed, json) that appear unrelated to GitHub URL parsing. The schema suggests the tool may validate or discard these, but the description is silent, leaving behavior ambiguous.

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. However, it is under-specified given the schema's breadth; it does not mention the tool's scope or the role of other parameters. The brevity is not efficient because it omits critical 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 9 parameters, none required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a minimal parse statement, leaving the agent unaware of what the tool returns, how to handle the non-URL parameters, or when it is appropriate to call. This is highly incomplete for a tool with 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters; it only implies that 'url' is relevant but does not explain how the other parameters are used or ignored. The schema itself carries the weight here.

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: 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.' This is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or domain-shape, which might also extract URL components, so it's not 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. An agent cannot tell if this is the right tool for a given task without more information.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that titles are discarded and that it counts current front-page stories, but it does not mention network access, caching, side effects, or the exact return format. For a tool with no annotations, this is minimal 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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. It does not explain what the parameters do in relation to the count, what the response looks like, or how the tool behaves under different inputs. The description is inadequate for correct invocation despite the schema coverage.

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 does not explain how the 9 optional parameters relate to the count operation, and the parameters seem unrelated to HN front pages. Since none are required, the description adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already documents each parameter generically.

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 verb 'count' and the resource 'Hacker News front-page stories'. It also notes 'Titles discarded', which clarifies the tool returns a count without title data, distinguishing it from content-fetching siblings like web-fetch.

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 web-fetch or fetch-status. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, 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?

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only names a set of values. It does not state what the tool returns, whether it mutates anything, whether some inputs are discarded, or any side effects. The input schema suggests many parameters are discarded, but this is not surfaced 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 one short, readable sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The brevity does not compensate for the lack of actionable information.

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

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and an input schema that appears orthogonal to the stated purpose, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke this tool or interpret its result.

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

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

Each input schema property has a self-contained description, providing high schema coverage. However, the description adds no meaning tying these parameters to 'IANA timezone names,' and the parameters themselves seem unrelated to the tool's stated purpose, leaving an agent confused about which to provide.

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

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

The description identifies a resource ('Common IANA timezone names') and a context ('for clock calls'), which is more than a tautology. However, it lacks a verb explaining what the tool does (returns, lists, validates?), and it does not differentiate from sibling tools 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?

The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a use context, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over timezone/utc-time, nor any exclusions or alternatives. An agent has no basis for selecting this 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a fetch operation and a limited return value; it does not explain how the nine schema parameters relate to the stated purpose, whether any are required, what happens to unrelated inputs, or any side effects such as network access or rate limits.

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 action and output. It is efficient but too terse given the complexity of the schema, leaving out essential 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?

With nine optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to invoke the tool correctly, which parameters to provide for a robots.txt check, or what the 'group counts' output looks like, and the schema's broad parameter set contradicts the narrow stated purpose.

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%, each parameter's description is generic and unrelated to robots.txt (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint'). The tool description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they map to the robots.txt fetch, creating a semantic mismatch between the description and 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 action ('Fetch'), resource ('public robots.txt'), and output ('group counts only'), making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like web-fetch or fetch-status, and the narrow scope is undermined by a schema with many unrelated 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate 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. The only behavioral note is 'Key discarded,' which says the input is not retained, but it doesn't clarify that the operation is local, non-destructive, or what happens on invalid input. For a check tool, an agent would expect to know if there are side effects (e.g., network calls) or required permissions. 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the purpose immediately and includes a useful behavioral note. It is appropriately concise for a simple validation tool, even though it lacks depth in 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?

Despite having 9 optional parameters and many sibling tools, the description is extremely sparse. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, when to prefer it over alternatives, or any constraints (e.g., local vs. remote). An agent cannot fully understand the tool's role without additional context. The lack of an output schema and annotations further raises the need for a richer 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% – all 9 parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description doesn't compensate with additional 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 action (check) and the resource (Jira issue key shape). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The phrase 'Key discarded' adds a behavioral hint but doesn't detract from purpose.

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

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

The description implies the tool is for validating a Jira issue key, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention any alternatives. With many sibling shape-checking tools, an agent could benefit from a note like 'Use this when you need to verify a Jira key format.' The context is clear from the name, but not made explicit.

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 discloses 'Body discarded' (a lightweight check), but nothing else: no side effects, auth, rate limits, or output format. Worse, the schema includes parameters like city, feed, json, path, zone, query that are unrelated to the stated 'library docs URL' purpose, creating a transparency gap and making actual behavior unclear.

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, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary detail; here it leaves out essential usage and behavioral context, so it is not 'appropriately sized'.

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 high parameter count (9), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to explain how the parameters relate to the stated purpose, what the tool actually does with them, or what the response looks like. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly with just 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters and does not clarify which parameters are relevant to the stated purpose. It neither contradicts nor enhances the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL.' This clearly indicates the core action and target. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which also return HTTP status, so the specificity is somewhat diluted by the schema's unrelated parameters (city, feed, json) that don't match the stated purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling URL/status tools. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and context, which is insufficient given the crowded toolset.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that values are discarded, which is a side effect, but it does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any other side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that is both concise and front-loaded with the primary action. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for the simple operation it describes.

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?

This is a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one line. It fails to explain how the many unrelated parameters (url, city, feed, host, etc.) relate to counting keys, leaving the agent to guess the correct usage. This is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify which parameter contains the JSON object, despite the 'json' parameter being described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'. The description neither enhances nor contradicts the schema.

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

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

The description states a clear action: count keys in a JSON object, with values discarded. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from validation or shaping tools. However, it doesn't explicitly tie the action to any of the 9 schema parameters, leaving ambiguity about the actual input.

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 like validate-json or domain-shape. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it, and there is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that query and fragment are dropped, which is a behavior. However, it fails to explain what happens with the many unrelated parameters in the schema (e.g., city, zone, json, feed), leaving significant ambiguity about their effect or lack thereof. This is a transparency gap for a tool with a broad, loosely-related parameter set.

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 filler, and it front-loads the core behavior (returning origin, host, path) before the caveat about dropping query and fragment. It is maximally concise.

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

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

The tool is conceptually simple for URL normalization, but the schema includes 9 parameters, many of which appear unrelated (city, feed, json, zone, query, etc.). The description does not explain how these interact with the tool's purpose, whether they are ignored, or what they contribute. This leaves the tool under-specified for an agent trying to call it correctly, especially given the lack of an output 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 each parameter has a textual description in the schema. The description itself does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the 'url' parameter implicitly. Per the baseline rule, when schema coverage is high and description adds nothing, 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 clearly states a specific operation: returning origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly notes that query and fragment are dropped. It avoids tautology and is unambiguous about the core action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'figma-url-shape' or 'browser-url-ok' that may also handle URLs, so it misses the sibling-distinction aspect 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or typical scenarios. An agent would have no basis to choose this over a sibling URL-related 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 that no browser is launched, but does not explain what 'can be opened' means, how the check is performed, or what happens with the many other parameters (several are noted as 'discarded' in the schema). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is only two sentences, which is brief, but the brevity is not effective because it omits critical information about the tool's real scope and behavior. It is under-specified rather than concisely 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 annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain how the parameters are used, what the return value represents, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based solely on the description.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% – every parameter has a description in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema already documents each parameter's role (even if some are 'discarded').

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') but the input schema lists 9 unrelated parameters (city, zone, json, feed, etc.) that have no obvious connection to opening a URL. This creates confusion about the actual purpose; the tool seems to be a catch-all validator rather than a URL-specific checker.

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., browser-url-ok, normalize-url, fetch-status). There is no mention of conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Query discarded', which is a mild transparency about the query parameter, but it fails to disclose that all other parameters are also discarded after their respective checks. The description does not cover side effects, security, or what happens with the inputs beyond counting, 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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no annotations. The brevity results in a lack of essential context, making it more under-specification than genuine conciseness. It is efficient but not adequately informative.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with the other eight parameters, what the return value is (presumably an integer length), or any behavioral constraints. An agent cannot reliably determine the tool's full behavior or expected input handling from this description alone.

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

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

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all nine parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value: it only reaffirms that the 'query' parameter is used for length counting, which is already stated in the schema ('discarded after the length check'). It does not clarify the role of other parameters beyond what the schema already says, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's 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 states a clear action: counting characters in a search query, which maps to the 'query' parameter. However, it does not clarify that the tool also accepts eight other parameters that are all discarded, nor does it differentiate itself from sibling tools like memory-key-count or hn-front-count. The purpose is partially clear but lacks scope precision.

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. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios. An agent has no information to decide between this and similar counting tools, making the usage guidance entirely absent.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility. The description only says it's a 'catalog', implying an informational read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any side effects, return format, or limitations. It fails to explain what happens when called or how the many parameters affect 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 at nine words, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks structure or front-loading of critical information beyond the basic purpose. A 3 reflects that it is brief but not appropriately detailed.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does with the parameters, what it returns, or when it's appropriate to use. An agent cannot make an informed decision about calling 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. However, the tool description adds nothing about how parameters relate to the catalog purpose. The nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) seem arbitrary and disconnected from HTTP status codes, making it unclear why an agent would supply them. 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 clear purpose: a short catalog of common HTTP status codes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fetch-status (which fetches a URL's status) by being a reference catalog rather than a network operation. However, it doesn't specify what action an agent performs with this catalog—whether it retrieves codes, explains them, or something else.

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 doesn't state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no basis for choosing this over fetch-status or other status-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?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the prompt is discarded and that a template is returned, without explaining side effects, error conditions, or what happens to the parameters. The schema descriptions mention 'discarded after' for many fields, but the description itself adds minimal behavioral context.

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

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

The description is extremely brief (two phrases), which is concise, but it lacks structure and clarity. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is an abrupt fragment that does not contribute meaningfully. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the three-step template looks like, what the output format is, or how the parameters affect the result. The description leaves too much unspecified for a tool with this many parameters.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('Return a three-step thinking template') and a resource, but the additional phrase 'Prompt discarded' is cryptic and doesn't clarify the tool's purpose or context. It fails to distinguish this tool from the many siblings in the 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'Prompt discarded' hints at some injection-related behavior but does not explicitly explain when to invoke it 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that all parameters except 'zone' are ignored/discarded, nor does it mention any error handling (e.g., invalid timezone), rate limits, or side effects. The tool appears to be a simple read operation, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately conveys the core purpose. It is not verbose, but it is also under-specified, which is a trade-off; conciseness itself is fine.

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

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

The tool exposes nine parameters but only one is relevant to its purpose. The description does not clarify this, and there is no output schema to explain the return format. An agent could mistakenly pass unnecessary parameters or fail to understand that only 'zone' matters. Given the tool's apparent simplicity, the description is incomplete for effective 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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it does not explain that 'zone' is the only meaningful input or that others are placeholders). The parameter descriptions in the schema themselves already say 'discarded', so the description adds zero value here.

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 ('Current time') on a specific resource ('named IANA timezone'). It is distinguishable from siblings like utc-time (which presumably gives UTC) and iana-zones (which lists zones). However, it does not clarify that only the 'zone' parameter is used and the other eight are ignored, 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like utc-time or iana-zones. The description does not mention any context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer the tool's niche from the name and sibling list.

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 all behavioral disclosure. It only says it returns a timestamp and gives no information about the 9 optional parameters, many of which are described in the schema as being discarded. It does not reveal that parameters are mostly ignored, that there is no side effect, or what the output format is. The description is silent on behavior beyond the core action.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is appropriately concise for a simple tool. It front-loads the core purpose without excess verbiage. However, it is perhaps too minimal, missing context that would justify a 5; still, for what it does convey, it is 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?

Despite the tool having 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain that the parameters are largely irrelevant or that the call is stateless. It also does not describe the return format (e.g., ISO 8601, epoch). An agent could call this tool with any parameter and get the same result, but that is not disclosed. The description is incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's actual behavior and limitations.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access'). The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema already documents them thoroughly. Since the schema carries the semantic burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat what the schema says.

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

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

The description states the tool returns the current UTC timestamp, which is a clear verb+resource statement. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', so an agent might not know when to pick this one over those. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling 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 alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. An agent receives no routing information beyond the name itself.

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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that 'The body is discarded,' implying the input is not retained, but it fails to explain the output—does it return a boolean, an error message, or something else? It also doesn't mention whether the tool makes network calls, has side effects, or handles malformed input gracefully. For a validation tool, the return behavior is critical and left entirely unexplained.

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

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

The description is exceptionally short—two sentences—which is concise and front-loads the primary action. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, omitting crucial details like what 'body' refers to and what the tool returns. The conciseness is a positive, but the lack of structure or elaboration prevents it from being a 4 or 5. It earns a middle score because it is efficient but incomplete.

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, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is markedly incomplete. It fails to explain the return value, which parameter is the JSON input, how the validation result is presented, and whether any parameters are ignored. An agent would need to inspect the schema for every parameter and still lack clarity on the tool's behavior. For a tool with this complexity, the description should provide significantly more context to enable 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 description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, leaving the schema to do all the work. For example, the 'json' parameter is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check,' which is clear in the schema. The tool description's reference to 'body' could map to 'json,' but this is not explicit. Since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate—no added value but no harm either.

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

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

The description clearly states the core action: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'domain-shape' or 'file-path-ok' that check other formats. However, the term 'body' is ambiguous—none of the 9 parameters are named 'body,' so an agent cannot infer which input to supply without looking at the schema. This ambiguity slightly reduces clarity, but the overall purpose is still well-defined.

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, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. It does not say 'Use this when you need to validate JSON' or contrast it with similar validation tools like 'domain-shape' or 'file-path-ok.' An agent would have to infer usage purely from the tool name and schema, which is insufficient for a multi-tool environment.

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 only states the action and provider, but does not mention that all parameters except city are discarded, whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or response format. This is a significant gap given the broad 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 a single short sentence, but it lacks essential information. It is not front-loaded with any scoping or usage constraints. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative, as the sentence does not earn its place by providing 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?

With 9 optional parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain how the tool behaves with different parameters, what the output looks like, or any side effects. An agent cannot confidently call this tool 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions only city, and the schema itself documents each parameter. However, the description does not clarify that only city is used or that other parameters are ignored, which is critical given the schema's mix. It adds no value beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 (current temperature) for a resource (a city) via a specific provider (Open-Meteo), which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings. However, the input schema includes nine optional parameters, most unrelated to weather, creating confusion about the tool's actual scope and undermining the clarity of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent has no information about when weather-hint is appropriate compared to sibling tools like geo-hint or timezone.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by stating 'Body discarded,' which tells the agent the response body is not returned. However, it does not disclose redirects, timeouts, error behavior, or side effects beyond that single trait.

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

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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, and the description does not explain which parameter to use or how the many discarded params relate to the core URL fetch. It also fails to distinguish this tool from several similar sibling tools, leaving an incomplete picture 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify how the URL relates to the many optional schema parameters. The schema descriptions already carry the 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 states a specific result: HTTP status and content type for a public URL, and adds a meaningful detail (body discarded). It is clear about the operation's output but does not differentiate it from similar 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?

The phrase 'for a public URL' gives implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling references are 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, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Title discarded after the call,' but does not explain how the title is supplied, what happens if it doesn't exist, or what the output looks like. No other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

While the text is only two sentences, it is under-specified rather than concise. The description fails to convey essential information (how to pass the title), and the statement 'Title discarded after the call' is ambiguous. No useful structure or front-loading of critical info is present.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not clarify which parameter is relevant, what the tool returns, or any edge cases. An agent cannot reasonably 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%, but the description's central concept—'title'—appears nowhere in the schema. The description adds no meaning to any of the 9 parameters and actually conflicts with them. An agent would be at a loss to know which parameter corresponds to the title.

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 ('check whether a Wikipedia title exists'), but the schema provides no parameter for a title. This makes the purpose misleading—an agent cannot map the described behavior to any of the 9 schema fields. It is not a tautology, but it is confusing due to the mismatch.

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 siblings like 'browser-url-ok' or 'fetch-status'. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, 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.