Indian/Mauritius clock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that it returns CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, and remote MCP hops, and that task text is discarded. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens with invalid inputs, how the parameters are consumed, or what the actual side effects are. The confusing 'Task text discarded' statement (no task parameter exists) adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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

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

The description is two sentences and reasonably front-loaded with the purpose. However, the sentence 'Task text discarded' is confusing and not tied to any parameter, wasting a few words. Overall it is compact and readable, but the odd mention detracts slightly from efficiency.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It does not explain how the parameters are combined, what the expected return format is, or under what circumstances the tool is useful. For a complex tool with many inputs, this description is inadequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the nine parameters having a descriptive line. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning about how the parameters are used together or what their role is in finding the gateway. It only repeats the discard note, which is already implied for several parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description provides marginal extra context.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), and lists what it returns. However, it does not clarify how the nine unrelated parameters (url, city, feed, host, json, etc.) relate to finding that gateway, making the purpose ambiguous. It also does not distinguish itself from any of the 26 sibling tools, leaving the agent unsure of when this tool is appropriate.

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 any alternative. The description does not mention any sibling tool, conditions for use, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine if this is the right tool for a given task based on the description alone.

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

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

The description discloses only that no browser is launched, which is a useful side-effect note. It does not explain how the check is performed, whether network access is required, or that the tool appears to handle multiple input types beyond URLs. With no annotations provided, this minimal disclosure leaves 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 a single concise sentence, which is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it lacks any structure to accommodate the complexity of 9 optional parameters, and it omits critical usage details. It is concise but under-specified.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain which parameters are relevant, how to select among them, or what the expected return value is. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without further information.

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

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

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), which is the baseline for a 3. Several parameter descriptions add hints like 'discarded after the shape check,' providing extra context. However, the tool description does not connect these parameters to the core purpose, and some descriptions (e.g., url says 'normalize or cite') conflict with the stated function, limiting the added value.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a key trait ('No browser is launched'). However, the input schema includes many parameters unrelated to URLs (city, zone, query, json), creating ambiguity about the tool's actual scope. It also does not differentiate itself from siblings like fetch-status or playwright-url-ok, which perform similar URL checks.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch-status or playwright-url-ok. The description offers no context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over its siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Expression discarded,' which is cryptic and does not explain what the tool actually does, what it returns, or side effects. The schema suggests it might validate shapes of various inputs, but the description does not confirm that.

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

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

The description is short, which is concise, but it is under-specified and not front-loaded with useful information. It is concise but ineffective because it does not convey the tool's purpose or usage.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what to pass, what the tool does, or what to expect in return. The schema alone is insufficient to infer usage.

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

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

The tool description does not mention any parameters. The schema provides descriptions for each of the 9 parameters, but those descriptions are about parameter content (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') and do not clarify how they relate to the stated arithmetic purpose. The description adds zero value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic' which is a clear verb+resource, but it is immediately contradicted by the input schema, which contains no arithmetic expression parameter and instead lists unrelated fields like url, city, json, etc. This makes the purpose ambiguous and does not distinguish it from siblings that also handle URLs, JSON, or timezones.

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 any of the 27 siblings. No context, no exclusions, no mention of alternatives or conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that page content is not stored, but does not state whether the tool makes network requests, what happens to the other parameters, or what the output format looks like. This is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters and no output 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 sentence, highly concise, and front-loads the core action. It avoids fluff, though its brevity contributes to the incompleteness. It earns a high score for efficiency, not for completeness.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the role of the majority of parameters, the return format, side effects (if any), or error conditions. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the current description.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is individually documented. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify how 'url' relates to the others or which parameters are relevant to the stated purpose. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description misses an opportunity to explain the parameter interactions.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), which is distinct from many siblings. However, it fails to mention the other eight parameters, leaving the full purpose ambiguous. An agent might be confused about why 'ref', 'city', or 'json' exist, though the core action is clear.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many URL-related siblings (e.g., fetch-status, normalize-url, browser-url-ok). The single statement 'Page content is not stored' hints at a difference but does not explicitly route the agent to an alternative or specify conditions. The agent must infer usage from 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?

The only behavioral disclosure is 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy note. The description does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, what happens with multiple parameters, or what the output format is. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to deliver.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, but the purpose is so vague that the conciseness does not compensate for the lack of substance. It earns its place in the sense of not wasting words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what classification means, what the output looks like, which parameters to use in which scenarios, or whether multiple parameters can be combined. An agent has no way to correctly invoke this 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%, so each parameter is already documented with descriptions like 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague. It doesn't specify what classification system is used, what output categories exist, or how it differs from sibling tools like domain-shape or file-path-ok. It lacks a specific verb+resource and leaves the tool's core function ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned. An agent cannot determine if this tool is appropriate for a given input.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a negative ('without WHOIS or ownership data') but does not explain side effects, data handling, or what the tool does with the varied parameters. The schema hints at discarding inputs, but the description itself offers no 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 only one sentence, which is extremely concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It lacks any structure or additional details needed to understand the tool's full behavior, making the brevity a deficiency rather than an asset.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the tool is complex. The description covers only hostname splitting, ignoring the other eight parameters and the overall tool semantics. The schema descriptions partially compensate, but the description leaves critical context missing, such as when to use each parameter or how the tool behaves as a whole.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 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 action—splitting a hostname into labels—and clarifies it excludes WHOIS/ownership data. However, the input schema accepts nine unrelated parameters (e.g., city, json, query) that do not align with hostname splitting, so the stated purpose is incomplete and potentially misleading about the tool's actual scope.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many siblings like normalize-url, github-repo-shape, and figma-url-shape, the description offers no selection criteria, making it impossible for an agent to choose correctly.

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 full behavioral disclosure. It says 'return status only' but doesn't specify what statuses are returned, whether it's a success/failure code, or how it handles the non-URL parameters. It also fails to mention that many parameters are discarded after validation.

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

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

The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than efficient. It omits critical information about the tool's multi-input behavior and return semantics, making it more of a placeholder than a useful definition.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot determine what this tool does for inputs like city, zone, or json, nor what 'status' means in each case. The description fails to provide a complete picture for a tool with such a broad parameter set.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. However, the tool description does nothing to connect the URL-centric purpose to the other parameters. The description contradicts the schema's breadth by implying only URL handling, leaving agents confused about how to use the other 8 parameters.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: HEAD a public URL and return status. However, the input schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (city, ref, zone, etc.), which the description ignores. It also doesn't differentiate from sibling tools 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description gives no context about what types of inputs are appropriate or when a HEAD request would be preferred over other fetching tools. Sibling tools exist but no exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions 'Path discarded,' which is ambiguous and not enough. It doesn't state side effects, read-only nature, or what happens to inputs (many are 'discarded after check' per schema, but the description doesn't summarize this).

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks structure and doesn't front-load essential information like input requirements or output behavior. It's not appropriately sized for a 9-parameter tool.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose beyond a vague parse action, doesn't mention return values, usage context, or any constraints, making it nearly useless for an agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented individually. The description adds a specific Figma URL context, but it conflicts with the generic 'normalize or cite' description for the url parameter and introduces a 'path' note that seems unrelated. It adds some value but also confusion.

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

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

The description states 'Parse a Figma file URL' with a specific resource, but 'Path discarded' is cryptic and the tool name suggests shape-checking. It fails to clarify what 'parse' means (extract? validate?) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like normalize-url or browser-url-ok.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer entirely.

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

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

The description discloses that there is 'no disk access', which is a useful side-effect disclosure, but it fails to mention what the tool actually does with the path (e.g., returns a boolean, validates syntax) or whether it performs any other checks. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not meet it.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently rich. It front-loads the core purpose but omits essential details, making it more of a stub than a well-structured description.

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

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

The tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers a fraction of the behavior. It does not explain the purpose of the other parameters, the return value, or edge cases. This is critically incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. However, the tool description only references 'path', leaving the other eight parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) unexplained. The agent cannot infer why these exist or how they relate to path safety.

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

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

The description states a clear verb ('check') and resource ('path'), but the meaning of 'safe' is vague. It distinguishes from siblings like browser-url-ok and domain-shape by mentioning path, but does not specify what constitutes safe (e.g., traversal, absolute/relative, extension).

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-check tools (browser-url-ok, domain-shape, jira-key-shape, etc.). An agent has no context to select this tool over others.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it provides coordinates via Open-Meteo, without revealing that it makes an external call, how it handles inputs (e.g., which parameters are used or discarded), or what output it produces. This is a significant gap for a tool with nine 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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters. It is not overly verbose, but it lacks crucial information. The brevity does not earn its place because it omits necessary 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 nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to know how to call it correctly. It does not specify which parameters are relevant, how to provide the place, what the return format is, or any side effects. This is a major incompleteness given the complexity.

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

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

The input schema already has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, and it does not clarify which parameter maps to 'a place' (e.g., 'city' or 'query'). However, since the schema covers each parameter, the description is not required to repeat them. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: providing latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo. It is clear but does not differentiate from sibling tools like weather-hint or timezone, which also deal with location data. It is not a tautology and gives the core purpose, though sibling differentiation is absent.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or when to prefer other siblings such as weather-hint or timezone. The description leaves the agent to infer usage context entirely.

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 the core action but fails to explain that only the 'url' parameter is actually used while others are discarded, nor does it describe error behavior, output format, or any side effects. The schema's generic parameter descriptions (e.g., 'URL to normalize or cite') do not clarify the GitHub-specific behavior, creating ambiguity about how the tool behaves with other 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) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, conciseness comes at the cost of necessary details given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations). It lacks structure to guide an agent on which parameters matter, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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

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

The description is grossly incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations. It does not explain which parameter is the input, what the output looks like, how it handles invalid URLs, or why the other parameters are present. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based solely on the description and schema.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described in the schema. However, the tool description does not map its purpose to specific parameters; it implicitly suggests 'url' is relevant but doesn't clarify the roles of the other 8 parameters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the action (parse) and resource (owner and repo from a GitHub URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings like domain-shape or figma-url-shape by specifying GitHub, so an agent can infer its primary use. However, it omits mention of validation or 'shape' checking implied by the name, which slightly reduces clarity.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state conditions like 'Use this when given a GitHub URL' or mention that other shape tools handle different URL types. The description offers no exclusions or context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Titles discarded,' which hints at output behavior, but it does not disclose whether the tool makes network requests, has side effects, or explain how the nine optional parameters are used. This is a significant gap 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 very short and front-loaded with the action: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories. Titles discarded.' It is efficient and avoids verbosity, though it may be under-specified. Still, for the limited content, it is concise.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain the role of any parameter, the expected output format, or any behavioral details beyond the title-discarding note. For a tool with this many parameters, the description is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the 9 parameters explicitly described in the schema (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). This meets the baseline of 3. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters relate to counting HN stories, leaving an unexplained disconnect.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' It is unambiguous about the core action. It does not differentiate from siblings, but none of the sibling tools appear related to HN counting, so the clarity is sufficient for a 4.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The description is a single sentence that only states the action.

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 exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states that these are common names for clock calls, without any mention of side effects, read-only status, return format, or constraints. It's entirely uninformative.

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 fragment that under-specifies the tool. This is not effective conciseness but rather an absence of necessary content.

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

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

With 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is entirely inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, behavior, or expected output, making it impossible for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

The schema covers all 9 parameters with individual descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't detract 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 says 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' but lacks a verb or clear operation. It doesn't state whether the tool lists, validates, or resolves timezone names. The name 'iana-zones' suggests a list, but the description is too vague to distinguish from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'fetch' and 'return group counts' without disclosing which parameter selects the URL, error behavior, rate limits, or that many parameters are discarded. The schema suggests a generic shape-checker, directly contradicting the stated purpose.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with the action front-loaded. However, it is under-specified and omits essential details, so while concise, it sacrifices informativeness.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain which parameter is the robots.txt URL, what 'group counts' means, how parameters interact, or any expected behavior. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based 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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema, but these descriptions are unrelated to the stated purpose (e.g., 'city' for weather, 'json' for validation, 'path' for file check). The description does not explain how any parameter maps to fetching a robots.txt, so the parameter semantics add no meaningful guidance for this tool.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and a resource, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like web-fetch or fetch-status, and the parameter schema (city, zone, json, etc.) contradicts the stated purpose, making the tool's actual function ambiguous.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description provides no context for selection among the 26 sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only notes that the key is 'discarded', but does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error), how invalid shapes are handled, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a check-type tool.

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

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

The description is extremely short (two sentences) and could be considered concise, but it is under-specified. It provides no structural clarity on which parameter to use or what to expect, making the brevity a liability rather than a virtue.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a description that fails to connect to its schema. Given nine parameters and no guidance, the definition is far from complete for an agent to use safely and correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions, but these descriptions are generic and do not align with the stated purpose. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, and the schema itself fails to indicate which parameter is the Jira key, so the agent cannot correctly 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 a specific action ('Check a Jira issue key shape') but fails to map it to any of the nine schema parameters. None of the properties (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are labeled as the Jira key, making it unclear which input to use. The mismatch between the tool's purpose and its schema undermines clarity.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling shape-checkers like 'github-repo-shape' or 'domain-shape'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without direction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Body discarded,' which is a minor detail. It doesn't state that it makes network requests, returns only a status code, or what happens with each parameter. The description contradicts the schema's breadth, suggesting a single-use case while the schema implies multiple.

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 under-specified for a 9-parameter tool. It lacks structure and front-loads a narrow use case, 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?

Given 9 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what this tool does with different inputs, what it returns, or when to invoke it.

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

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

The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. While schema coverage is 100%, the description doesn't clarify how parameters like 'city' or 'query' are used. The single mention of 'library docs URL' conflicts with parameters that are not library-related.

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 (HTTP status) and resource (public library docs URL), but the schema accepts 9 unrelated parameter types (city, feed, json, path, zone, etc.) with no mention of library docs in most of them. This makes the stated purpose misleading and fails to distinguish from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 26 siblings. No exclusions, no context, no mention of 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?

The description reveals that values are discarded, which is a behavioral trait, but it does not disclose output format, error handling, or which parameter is used. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is insufficient for a tool with 9 optional 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?

Two sentences with no fluff, clearly front-loading the purpose. However, given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), this brevity may border on under-specification rather than conciseness.

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

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

The description is inadequate for a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not explain how to provide the JSON object, what the output looks like, or when to choose this tool. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly.

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

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

The schema already provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter-level information. However, the tool description's mention of 'JSON object' does not clarify which parameter maps to that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a clear action (count keys) and resource (JSON object), but it does not specify which of the 9 parameters contains the JSON object. The 'json' parameter description mentions validation rather than key counting, creating ambiguity. The core purpose is identifiable but the input mapping is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate-json or domain-shape. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not mention how the other parameters (ref, city, feed, etc.) are handled, despite their schema descriptions stating they are discarded. This partial disclosure is useful but incomplete for a tool with such a 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 sentence with no fluff, and the core function is front-loaded. However, given the tool's complexity (9 parameters), the brevity may under-specify the overall behavior. It is concise but not overly detailed, which earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

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

The description is far from complete for a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It only covers the URL normalization aspect and ignores the other parameters, which likely represent distinct functionalities (e.g., timezone, validation, hints). An agent cannot infer when to use this tool for those other purposes, so significant context is missing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters with clear semantics (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not compensate for the schema's comprehensive 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 verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' This is specific and aligns with the tool name. It does not, however, address the tool's other apparent functions implied by the 8 additional schema parameters, so it is not fully comprehensive. It still distinguishes from URL-checking siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web-fetch, browser-url-ok, or domain-shape. The description only states what it does for a URL, with no mention of when it is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when to choose a different tool. No exclusions or alternative routing 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that no browser is launched, which is a useful limitation, but it does not describe side effects, permissions, network behavior, or what happens with the various parameters (many are discarded per schema). The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words, but it is so brief that it omits critical context. Still, for conciseness, it earns a high score; the structural efficiency is good.

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

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

Despite a fully covered schema, the description is too thin for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what 'opened' means, how the check is performed, what the return value looks like, or why many parameters are discarded. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from 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% – all nine parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify which parameter is primary (likely 'url') or how the discarded parameters interact with the check.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Check whether a URL can be opened' – a specific verb and resource. It also notes 'No browser is launched,' which helps distinguish it from browser-based siblings like 'browser-url-ok'. However, the meaning of 'opened' is ambiguous (HTTP request? DNS check? file path?), and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other URL tools like 'fetch-status' or 'normalize-url'.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of contexts, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. The description is purely functional and leaves the agent to infer usage from the name or schema.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the query is discarded, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the tool performs any I/O, returns a number, or has side effects. For a simple counter, this is minimal but not entirely absent.

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 zero fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the 'Query discarded' note adds value without waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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

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

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least indicate the return format (e.g., a character count). It also lacks usage guidance. While the schema covers parameters, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's purpose and output.

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

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

The schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including 'query' explicitly stating 'Search text; discarded after the length check.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for full coverage.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Count characters in a search query.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'hn-front-count' (count front page items) and 'memory-key-count' (count memory keys). The addition 'Query discarded' clarifies the non-persistent nature, but the return value is not stated.

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 context, exclusions, or preferability over sibling tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only says it is a catalog and does not describe side effects, output format, or what happens to the 9 input parameters. The schema descriptions mention discarding inputs, but that is not in the tool description, leaving the agent unaware of any read-only or destructive nature.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It lacks enough substance to be considered well-structured for a tool with 9 parameters, though it is front-loaded with the core concept.

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, so the description should explain how the parameters relate to the catalog and what the return value looks like. The current description is far too minimal to be complete for such a complex 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states the tool provides a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes', which gives a general idea of the purpose but is vague about how inputs are used. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which also deal with statuses. A specific verb and resource are missing.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools like fetch-status, web-fetch, and validate-json, the lack of usage direction is a clear gap.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is a behavioral trait, but it doesn't mention that the nine parameters are also ignored or how they relate to the tool's function. The template's nature and any side effects are entirely undisclosed.

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

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

The description is extremely short (two sentences) and front-loads the main action, but the second sentence ('Prompt discarded.') is cryptic and adds little value. It is concise but not effectively structured, as the key information is missing.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool does with its parameters, what the template looks like, when to call it, or what the response will be. This is far below the minimum needed for safe and correct 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 schema describes each parameter, but the tool description adds nothing about how they relate to the tool. Moreover, the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') conflict with the stated purpose of returning a thinking template, creating confusion rather than clarity. The description fails to compensate for this disconnect.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Return') and a resource ('three-step thinking template'), but the resource is vague—it doesn't explain what the template contains or how it's used. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds confusion rather than clarity. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'calc-eval' or 'validate-json'.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The description offers no context, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent has no idea what task this tool is meant to support.

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 implies a read-only operation ('Current time') but does not mention that the other parameters are accepted and discarded, nor does it explain any potential side effects or error conditions. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with nine 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 a single, concise sentence that is easy to read and front-loads the main action. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters; it omits essential context about the tool's multi-purpose nature, making it too brief to be fully useful.

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

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

The description is incomplete given the tool's complexity. It only addresses the timezone functionality while ignoring the other eight parameters, which are documented in the schema but not integrated into the tool's purpose. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks sufficient information to understand the full behavior of this 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?

Although the input schema provides descriptions for all nine parameters (100% coverage), the tool description fails to clarify that only the 'zone' parameter is relevant to the stated purpose. The description gives no indication that the other parameters are unrelated and will be discarded, which could mislead an agent into thinking they are part of the timezone operation. The schema does explain this, but the tool description should reinforce it.

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

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

The description clearly states the primary action: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like utc-time and iana-zones by specifying 'named IANA timezone'. However, the presence of eight additional unrelated parameters in the schema makes the tool's actual scope ambiguous, which slightly undermines clarity.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as utc-time or iana-zones. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the output (UTC timestamp) but does not disclose that all 9 input parameters are discarded/ignored, nor does it specify the return format (e.g., ISO 8601, Unix epoch). The schema hints at discarding, but the description itself omits this behavioral detail.

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. It is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is perhaps too terse given the tool's complexity, but conciseness itself is good.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain why the parameters exist, that they are all ignored, or the exact return format. An agent would be confused about how to use this tool correctly, especially given the unrelated parameter names. The description fails to provide the necessary context for safe and correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter individually described (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline is 3 given the high coverage. The schema already explains the parameters' meaning and discard behavior.

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

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

The description states the tool's function clearly: 'Current UTC timestamp.' This is a specific verb+resource (returns a UTC timestamp). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'timezone,' but the name and description make the distinction apparent. No ambiguity about the core purpose.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of contexts, exclusions, or when not to use it. The description provides zero usage direction, leaving the agent to infer.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions that 'The body is discarded,' but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error message) or how it handles non-JSON inputs. The schema notes that many parameters are 'discarded after the call,' but the description lacks any detail on side effects or output format.

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

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

The description is very concise: two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, omitting essential behavioral and usage details. It is efficient but not comprehensive, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It fails to explain the overall behavior, return value, or how to combine parameters. An agent would be uncertain about what inputs are expected and what the tool does beyond a vague JSON check.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description, however, does not reference any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the validation, nor does it compensate for the schema's cryptic references like 'discarded after the shape check.' The baseline of 3 applies since the schema is self-documenting, but the description adds no extra value.

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

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

The description states a clear purpose: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This is a specific verb and resource. However, the input schema includes nine parameters for URLs, cities, feeds, hosts, paths, zones, and queries, suggesting the tool may validate more than JSON. The description does not clarify whether it handles only JSON or also other shapes, nor does it distinguish itself from sibling validators like file-path-ok or domain-shape.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description says nothing about selection criteria, such as 'use this for JSON validation, use file-path-ok for file paths.' Given the many sibling validators, this is a significant omission.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool returns a temperature. It does not mention that some parameters are discarded (as indicated in the schema), whether it makes external network calls, what the response format is, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the one-line function.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that gets to the point immediately. It is concise and free of fluff. However, it omits essential context about the other parameters, so the conciseness is at the expense of completeness. Still, as a stylistic metric, it is well-structured and brief.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the weather scenario, leaving the purpose of the other eight parameters unexplained. An agent cannot know which parameters to supply, how they interact, or what the expected response is. This is severely incomplete for a multi-parameter 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters; it only mentions the city parameter implicitly. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the description does not compensate for the lack of clarity about why many parameters 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 clearly states the primary purpose: getting the current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. However, the input schema exposes nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, json, etc.) with no explanation in the description about their role or whether they are part of this tool's actual function. This ambiguity means an agent cannot reliably determine what the tool does beyond the weather aspect, especially since many siblings suggest specialized hint tools.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or how it differs from sibling tools like geo-hint or timezone. An agent has no basis to decide whether weather-hint is the right tool for a given request.

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 mentions that the body is discarded, but does not explain what happens with the other parameters (e.g., does it validate JSON, check timezone names, etc.?). It also does not mention any side effects, required permissions, or response format. The single sentence is insufficient for a tool with such a 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 extremely concise, a single sentence with no filler. However, it is under-specified for the tool's apparent complexity. It earns a 4 because it is efficiently written, but the structure lacks necessary details about the tool's broader purpose.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the tool's overall function (which appears to be a generic shape/format validator), nor does it clarify how parameters interact. An agent would be unable to correctly decide what to pass or what to expect back. The description is inadequate for this level of 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% and each parameter has a descriptive comment (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, but the schema already documents them thoroughly. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not detract but also does not enhance.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('HTTP status and content type for a public URL') but only covers one of the tool's apparent capabilities. The input schema lists 9 parameters including city, feed, JSON, zone, and query, all of which are described as discarded after checks, implying a much broader validation tool. The description does not mention these, making it misleading and failing to differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. The description does not state conditions, exclusions, or why this tool should be chosen over others. The schema hints at multiple uses, but the description offers no context for selection.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Title discarded after the call,' which is a side-effect note, but it does not explain the primary behavior beyond checking existence, what happens on success/failure, or any security/permission implications. The mismatch between the description mentioning 'title' and the schema lacking a 'title' parameter further reduces transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely brief (one sentence), which is concise but not structured effectively. It under-specifies critical information like how to provide the title and what the tool returns. The brevity here is a deficiency rather than a virtue, as it omits essential usage details.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain which parameter corresponds to the title, how the check is performed, what the response format is, or how it differs from the many sibling tools. The description provides almost no contextual guidance for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), the tool description does not map the concept of 'title' to any specific parameter. The schema lists parameters like 'query', 'ref', 'url' with unrelated descriptions, and none explicitly represents a Wikipedia title. The description adds no value in clarifying which parameter to use for the title, leaving the agent to infer incorrectly.

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 Wikipedia title exists.' This clearly communicates the core function. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'normalize-url' or 'fetch-status' which might also handle URLs or titles, so it misses an opportunity for distinction.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any sibling tools, conditions, or exclusions. An agent is left to guess whether this is the right tool for checking a Wikipedia title versus another tool like 'normalize-url' or 'fetch-status'.

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