Pacific/Auckland clock

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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explain side effects, error conditions, or the behavior regarding the json and zone parameters (e.g., whether they are accepted but ignored, or if they trigger additional checks). The lack of annotations 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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the privacy note is secondary. Every word contributes meaning without unnecessary elaboration.

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 four parameters and a presumably straightforward output, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the host, json, and zone parameters, nor does it describe the output structure (beyond 'host, scheme, HTTP status'). The description leaves too much to infer about the tool's actual behavior and applicability.

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 schema has descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), the tool description adds no meaning for host, json, or zone. The description only implies url as the primary input. The schema descriptions themselves are generic and do not clarify the role of these parameters in the citation process, leaving their purpose ambiguous.

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

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

The description clearly states the primary function: returning host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'Page content is not stored' adds a distinguishing caveat. However, the presence of unexpected parameters (host, json, zone) in the schema introduces ambiguity about the tool's full 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 the sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json). It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only additional note ('Page content is not stored') is a privacy caveat, not usage direction.

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

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

The note 'No identifiers are retained' provides some behavioral transparency about data retention. However, since there are no annotations, more disclosure is needed about side effects, external calls, or whether any inputs are sent anywhere.

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 privacy note placed after the main statement. It is not verbose or bloated, though the main statement is vague and could be more 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?

The description is incomplete for an agent to understand how to use the tool correctly. There is no output schema and no explanation of what 'classified' means, what response format to expect, or how this tool differs from the listed sibling tools.

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 descriptions for all four parameters, so coverage is high. The tool description itself adds little meaning about how the parameters relate to the classification, but the individual schema descriptions are sufficient for basic 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 says 'Show how this request is classified' but does not specify what classification means, what kind of compatibility is being checked, or what result the caller should expect. It also fails to differentiate this tool from siblings like validate-json 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, no conditions for invocation, and no explanation of how the url/host/json/zone parameters should be chosen.

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 the tool does not fetch WHOIS or ownership data, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not specify whether the operation is read-only, can fail, or has other side effects. Given no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden and provides minimal transparency.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. The extra phrase about WHOIS data is a minor addition but does not bloat the 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 description is incomplete because it does not explain how the parameters relate to the action. The mismatch between the description and the schema parameters creates confusion, and the description does not provide sufficient context for an agent to understand what inputs are expected or how they are used.

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 parameters (url, host, json, timezone) are completely mismatched with the described purpose of splitting a hostname into labels. The parameter descriptions appear to be copied from other tools (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json, timezone) and do not relate to the tool's stated function. This is a severe semantic 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 the verb 'Split' and the resource 'hostname' into labels, which is a specific action. The additional phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' clarifies a non-goal, but it does not detract from 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?

The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies that WHOIS-related operations are out of scope, but it does not name specific sibling tools or conditions 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 disclosing behavior, but it offers none. There is no statement about whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies state, or what side effects (if any) might occur. The description is simply a noun phrase with no behavioral information at all.

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 free of redundant text, which is a positive. However, its brevity comes at the cost of clarity—'clock calls' is undefined jargon. The single-sentence structure does not provide enough elaboration to make the tool usable, though it avoids unnecessary padding.

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 and parameter list are utterly insufficient to understand what the tool does, what inputs are meaningful, what output to expect, or how it relates to the sibling tools. An agent would likely misuse this tool because the context is so vague. The mismatched parameters (url, host, json) compound the incompleteness, leaving the tool's actual behavior entirely ambiguous.

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 parameter descriptions are present but largely irrelevant and confusing. The 'zone' parameter is described as an 'IANA timezone name' which aligns with the tool's nominal purpose, but 'url', 'host', and 'json' have descriptions about URL normalization, hostnames, and JSON validation that have no apparent connection to timezone names. The descriptions fail to clarify how these parameters are used or what the tool expects.

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 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase with no explicit verb or action, making it unclear whether the tool returns a list, validates a name, or performs some other operation. The mention of 'clock calls' is cryptic and not explained. The parameter list (url, host, json, zone) does not align with the stated purpose, further confusing the tool's intended function.

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

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

There is absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (timezone, tz-pacific-auckland, utc-time, etc.). The description does not mention any alternative or decision criteria. An agent would have no way to know if this is the appropriate tool for a given timezone-related 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the tool fetches (a network operation) and returns only group counts, which indicates it discards other content. However, it omits details like failure modes (e.g., 404, non-existent robots.txt), whether it performs a network request to an external domain, or any rate-limit or safety considerations. This is a partial 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 a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. It states the core action and the output limitation immediately. While it is arguably under-specified, it is not verbose or padded. It earns a 4 for efficiency and focus.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and multiple parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain how to specify the target robots.txt, what 'group counts' means exactly, or what the tool returns (e.g., a numeric count per user-agent group). An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional clues. The description is incomplete for safe and 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 each parameter (url, host, json, zone) already has a description. The tool description, however, does not clarify which parameter(s) are relevant for fetching robots.txt. It only says 'fetch a public robots.txt,' leaving the agent to guess whether to use url or host. This adds no value 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 tool's action: fetching a public robots.txt and returning group counts. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'robots.txt' are specific. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, but its unique focus on group counts sets it apart. Slight ambiguity remains on which input parameter (url or host) supplies the target, but the core purpose is evident.

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 such as normalize-url, citation, or domain-shape. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over others. An agent would have no clue about context or trade-offs.

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 explains the core behavior (extracting URL components and dropping query/fragment) but does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or additional behavior. The presence of unexplained parameters in the schema 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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy or unnecessary 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?

The description omits crucial information about the extra parameters, making it incomplete for a caller to understand the full tool contract. It only covers the core URL normalization behavior.

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

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

The description does not explain the 'host', 'json', and 'zone' parameters, which are present in the schema. Only the 'url' parameter is implicitly described by the tool's purpose. The schema descriptions for the extra parameters are vague and unrelated to URL normalization.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns origin, host, and path from a URL and drops query and fragment. It is specific about the output, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 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 conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided and the description discloses no behavioral details—whether the tool returns a list, looks up a code, has side effects, or requires specific input. The description 'short catalog' gives no operational information whatsoever.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, which is efficient. However, the brevity comes at the cost of critical information—no action, no query mechanism, no return format—making it under-specified despite being short.

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

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

There is no output schema and no explanation of what the tool returns or how it should be invoked. Given the mismatched parameters and complete lack of operational detail, an agent has insufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description, but the descriptions (URL to normalize, public hostname, JSON to validate, timezone name) are irrelevant to the stated purpose of an HTTP status code catalog. The parameter meanings are coherent individually yet misleading in context, failing to explain how they serve 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 is a 'short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which names the resource but not a clear action. The purpose is undermined by the four parameters (url, host, json, zone), none of which relate to HTTP status codes, leaving an agent uncertain what the tool actually does.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools (normalize-url, validate-json, timezone, etc.) correspond to the parameters, but no distinction or selection criteria is provided, so an agent cannot tell when status-catalog is the right choice.

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, but it does not mention whether the tool is read-only or has any side effects. The presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, json) in the schema suggests potential additional behavior, which is not disclosed at all.

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 clearly conveys the core function without extraneous detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 too minimal to be contextually complete. It fails to explain the purpose or relevance of the three unrelated parameters (url, host, json), leaving the agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly or whether those parameters are optional.

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 complete descriptions for all four parameters, giving high coverage (100%). The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so it relies on the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline rule.

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: returning the current time in a named IANA timezone. It uses an implicit verb ('current time') and is distinct from sibling tools like utc-time and tz-pacific-auckland, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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 like utc-time or tz-pacific-auckland. It lacks any context about typical use cases or conditions that would favor 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects or read-only nature. The phrase 'Current local time' implies a read-only query, but this is not explicit, and no information about errors or rate limits is provided.

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

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

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, but it omits necessary details about parameters and output, so it is concise at the expense of completeness.

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

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

The tool definition is incomplete: the description fails to explain the irrelevant-looking parameters, the output format, or how it relates to sibling tools. Given the schema contains clearly mismatched parameter descriptions, the description should clarify the actual usage, but it does not.

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 does not explain any of the four parameters. The schema includes `url`, `host`, and `json`, which seem unrelated to a timezone tool, and only `zone` is relevant but its purpose is not clarified in the description. This creates confusion 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 clearly states the tool provides the current local time for a specific timezone, which distinguishes it from generic time tools. However, it doesn't specify the output format or whether it returns date-time, but the core purpose 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 alternatives like `timezone` or `utc-time`, which are sibling tools. The description does not mention any conditional context or preferred scenarios.

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, and the description only states the output without disclosing any behavior regarding the parameters. It is unclear whether passing url, host, json, or zone would alter the result, trigger side effects, or be silently ignored.

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 terse—a single sentence—which is concise but lacks any structural elements that would clarify usage or parameter handling. The brevity comes at the cost of essential information, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly.

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

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

With no output schema and no explanation of parameter influence, the description is incomplete even for a simple timestamp tool. The agent has no way to infer the response format, error behavior, or whether the parameters are accepted but meaningless.

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 for url, host, json, and zone are clearly for other purposes (normalizing, citing, validating, timezone conversion) and do not match a UTC timestamp tool. The description offers no explanation of how these parameters relate to the output, leaving the agent unable to determine whether they are even relevant.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns the current UTC timestamp, which is a specific and unambiguous function. However, it doesn't elaborate on the format or context of the timestamp, and the mismatch with the listed parameters slightly muddies the purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'timezone' or 'tz-pacific-auckland'. The description does not mention that parameters are ignored, how to request a specific timezone, or any condition that would select 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?

The description notes that the body is 'discarded', but provides no information about return values, error handling, side effects, or security implications. Without annotations, key behavioral aspects are left unspecified.

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 omits necessary context about the extra parameters, making it structurally adequate yet incomplete in 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?

Given the presence of four parameters, the description fails to explain how three of them relate to the stated purpose. The tool is not fully comprehensible without additional external knowledge, so it is incomplete 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?

Only the 'json' parameter is meaningfully described in relation to validation. The descriptions for 'url', 'host', and 'zone' are mismatched and irrelevant to JSON validation, actively misleading the agent about their 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 the primary action ('check whether a body is valid JSON') but leaves the purpose of the other parameters (url, host, zone) unclear, creating ambiguity about the tool's full 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. It does not mention any sibling tools or conditions that would make it the appropriate choice.

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