Pacific/Easter clock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful trait — 'No identifiers are retained' — which signals a privacy guarantee. However, it says nothing about the actual classification behavior: what categories it can return, whether it makes network calls (several params look like URLs and feeds), how results are formatted, or whether the tool is read-only. The single privacy note is too thin to be transparent.

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

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

Two short sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded first, and the privacy disclosure second. Every word earns its place, and the structure is tight. It is appropriately sized for what it communicates, even though what it communicates is thin.

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

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

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is far too sparse. It fails to explain what classifications exist, what the return value looks like, how the many parameters map to classification outcomes, or how an agent should interpret the result. The privacy note and vague purpose leave major gaps that an agent would need to resolve by trial and error.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 9 parameters are individually documented in the schema (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check,' 'no disk access'). The description itself adds nothing about parameters, but per the rubric the baseline is 3 when the schema already covers them. The schema's per-parameter notes actually carry more semantic weight than the tool description.

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 uses the verb 'Show' with the object 'how this request is classified,' but it never defines what classification means or which classifications exist. With 9 heterogeneous parameters (url, city, json, path, query, etc.) and 27 shape-checking siblings, an agent cannot tell what this tool outputs or how it differs from domain-shape or jira-key-shape. The purpose is vague rather than a tautology, which is why it earns a 2 rather than a 1.

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 zero guidance on when to invoke this tool versus the 27 siblings. Many siblings (domain-shape, figma-url-shape, github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape) appear to perform similar classification or shape-checking roles, yet the description provides no when/when-not conditions, no named alternatives, and no context on which input type the tool is meant for. An agent is left to guess.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool operates 'without WHOIS or ownership data', which is a negative constraint, but it does not describe side effects, what happens to discarded parameters, whether it performs network calls, error behavior, or any other operational details. This is minimal transparency 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 with no waste. However, it is under-specified: it front-loads the core action but fails to address the large parameter list or clarify the tool's actual scope. It is concise but not well-structured for an agent to use effectively.

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

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

The tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain the purpose of the many unrelated parameters, how they are used, what the return value looks like, or any operational context. This is severely incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema descriptions for each parameter are explicit, including notes about discarding after checks. The description does not clarify how these parameters relate to the core function, but the schema already documents them adequately, so the baseline applies.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('split') and resource ('hostname'), and adds a clarifying constraint ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). However, the input schema lists nine unrelated parameters (city, json, path, zone, etc.), making the actual scope ambiguous. An agent cannot tell which parameters are relevant to splitting a hostname versus the others, so the purpose is only partially 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 provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape, figma-url-shape, etc.). The description does not mention any alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria. An agent has no basis to decide between this tool and the other shape-checking 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the HTTP method (HEAD) and that it returns only status, but it omits details like redirect handling, timeouts, error behavior, or privacy implications. It also does not clarify that the tool handles multiple input types (e.g., city, json, path) beyond URLs, which is a notable gap.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and output. There is zero wasted wording, and it conveys the core functionality immediately.

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 covering diverse inputs (URL, city, JSON, path, timezone, etc.), yet the description only addresses the URL case. It does not explain the tool's broader applicability or how different parameters are handled (e.g., which are checked vs. discarded). Given the complexity and lack of annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to understand full capabilities.

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 already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter context; it only mentions the URL case, which is consistent with the schema but does not compensate for the tool's multi-parameter nature. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles semantics.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('HEAD') and resource ('public URL') and specifies the output is 'status only.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings that fetch full content (web-fetch) or check availability (browser-url-ok), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. It avoids tautology.

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

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

The description implies usage when only an HTTP status is needed, but it does not state when to avoid this tool or point to specific alternatives. Given the large sibling set, more explicit routing guidance would be helpful, but the core use case is evident.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches robots.txt and returns group counts, but it does not explain the role of the 9 parameters (many of which are described as 'discarded' in the schema), nor does it mention network requirements, error handling, or what constitutes a 'group count'. The description is minimally transparent about the core action but opaque about the tool's actual behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and output. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of missing critical context, which slightly detracts from the structure score but still earns a 4 for efficiency.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the parameters, how to supply the robots.txt URL, what happens to the other inputs, or what the returned group counts look like. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly without additional information.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic and unrelated to the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which has no apparent connection to robots.txt. The description of the tool does not reference any parameters, so it adds no clarification. The schema descriptions themselves are misleading for a robots.txt inspector, making parameter semantics poor.

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 ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and the exact output ('return group counts only'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools like 'domain-shape' or 'github-repo-shape', which target different resources. The tool name aligns perfectly with the stated purpose.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'web-fetch' or 'domain-shape'. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would lead an agent to choose this tool over others. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the body is discarded, which is useful, but it does not explain the behavior for the other parameters (e.g., 'city' or 'json') or clarify what happens when they are supplied. The tool's actual behavior remains opaque.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. Conciseness without substance is not effective; the sentence fails to convey the tool's actual scope or behavior.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does with most parameters, what the HTTP status means, or how to construct a valid call. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but those descriptions are generic and not aligned with the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'city' for a weather hint, 'json' to validate). The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema and actually contradicts the schema's diversity, leaving the agent unsure how to interpret the parameters in context.

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

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

The description states a verb ('HTTP status') and a resource ('public library docs URL'), but the schema lists nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query) that have nothing to do with library docs. This creates confusion about what the tool actually does and fails to distinguish it from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names, leaving the agent to guess based on the misleading purpose statement.

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 one trait—'Values discarded'—but says nothing about side effects, permissions, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient 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 concise (two short sentences) and front-loads the core action, but brevity comes at the expense of necessary clarity. Every sentence does not earn its place because the first sentence alone is insufficient to guide correct invocation.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to specify which parameter to use, what the return value represents, or how to handle the object input. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all properties have descriptions), so the baseline is 3, but the parameter descriptions are generic and misaligned with the tool's purpose. For example, the 'json' parameter is described as 'JSON text to validate', which is misleading for a key-counting tool. The description does not clarify which parameter holds the JSON object, and the parameter meanings do not add 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 clear verb+resource ('Count keys in a JSON object') and notes that values are discarded, which is distinctive. However, the input schema contains 9 unrelated string parameters (e.g., ref, url, city) that do not clearly map to the 'JSON object' the tool is supposed to count. The purpose is clear conceptually but ambiguous operationally, which prevents a higher score.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate-json' or 'domain-shape'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer when counting keys would be appropriate.

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 behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Query discarded,' implying no persistence, but it does not describe the return value, read-only nature, or how the other 8 parameters are handled. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with multiple inputs.

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

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

The description is very concise but under-specified. It front-loads the action but the second sentence about discarding is vague. It is not appropriately sized because it omits essential context, so a 3 reflects the balance between brevity and missing information.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the role of the other parameters, or when to use it. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on this description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, only indirectly referencing the 'query' parameter. It does not clarify that only the query length is returned or that other parameters are ignored.

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 'Count characters in a search query', identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'memory-key-count' that may also count characters, so it is clear but lacks distinguishing context.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, alternatives, or conditions for selection, 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?

The description mentions 'Prompt discarded,' which hints that the input is not used, but the schema already indicates parameters are discarded after shape checks. There is no disclosure of return format, side effects, or any other behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and fails to disclose much.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks essential information, so the structure does not aid the agent.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a very brief description, an agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how to invoke it correctly, or what the 'three-step thinking template' is. The description is critically incomplete.

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 schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, so no additional value beyond 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 the tool returns a three-step thinking template, but provides no detail on what that template contains or how it relates to the 9 input parameters. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'calc-eval' or 'browser-url-ok' – it's unclear what specific purpose it serves.

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. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only discloses that 'The body is discarded,' but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid JSON (error vs. boolean result), or any side effects on other parameters. It doesn't mention that other inputs are also discarded or that no external calls occur.

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

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

Two short sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about discarding is a single clause. Every word earns its place; it's appropriately sized for a tool of this apparent simplicity.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is far too minimal. It doesn't explain how the other parameters relate to the JSON check, what the return value looks like, or any prerequisites. An agent receiving a URL or city name would have no clue whether to invoke this tool. The description is incomplete for the tool's actual complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; it doesn't clarify that 'json' is the key parameter for JSON validation or explain the purpose of the other 8 parameters. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific action: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This is a clear verb and resource, and the name reinforces it. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling validation tools like file-path-ok or domain-shape, and the presence of 9 unrelated parameters in the schema could confuse an agent about the true scope, which is not addressed.

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 vs. alternatives. It doesn't state that this should be used only for JSON validation, nor does it mention any exclusions or when another sibling would be more appropriate. The description leaves the selection entirely to the agent's inference.

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 note is 'Title discarded after the call,' but since no title parameter exists, this is confusing and adds no actionable insight. With no annotations, the description fails to disclose side effects, errors, or return behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely brief, which is concise, but it omits essential information and contains a misleading claim about a 'title' that is not in the schema. Conciseness is not a virtue when it sacrifices clarity.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and a description that contradicts the schema, the definition is grossly incomplete. An agent has no idea what input to provide, what the result means, or how to distinguish this from the many similar 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the tool description does not connect any parameter to its stated purpose. The parameters appear generic and unrelated to Wikipedia title checking, so the description adds no value in interpreting them.

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

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

The description states a clear purpose ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists'), but the input schema exposes nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) with no 'title' field. This mismatch makes the stated purpose unusable and misleading for an agent.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or context, and the parameter list further obscures intended use.

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