Pacific/Efate clock

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that task text is discarded, which is a transparency note, and indicates the tool returns several items. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or has side effects, and omits any mention of permissions or reversibility.

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, consisting of a single sentence plus a fragment. It front-loads the primary purpose and then lists outputs, with the behavioral note at the end. Every element serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately describes the return values (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops) and notes that task text is discarded. This covers the essential information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it omits details on prerequisites or error handling, which are not critical for this type of retrieval 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?

The input schema has descriptions for all 9 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific context beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of the parameters' role in the tool's operation.

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: to find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid) and lists the specific outputs (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly checkers or validators.

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 lacks any mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and description alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'No browser is launched,' which is a minor behavioral note. It does not explain what 'opened' means (e.g., network request, syntax check), nor does it mention that most parameters are discarded, which is a significant behavioral trait inferred from the schema descriptions. The description is far from sufficient for a tool with this many parameters.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information about behavior and parameters. Conciseness should be balanced with completeness; here the brevity hurts 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or what 'opened' actually entails. An agent would have almost no idea how to call this tool correctly or what to expect.

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 each parameter. The description adds no parameter-level information, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does not compensate for any ambiguity, but it also doesn't contradict the schema.

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

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

The description states a clear action: check whether a URL can be opened, and adds that no browser is launched. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like fetch-status, playwright-url-ok, or normalize-url, so an agent cannot tell which tool to pick based on this description alone.

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, no context, no conditions. The description merely states the action without any recommendation or differentiation, 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 carries the full burden. It only says 'Expression discarded,' which hints the expression is not used but gives no clue about side effects, return values, authentication, or state changes. For a tool with a misleading name and schema, this is critically opaque.

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

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

The description is two short sentences, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. The first sentence implies a function that the parameters do not support, and the second sentence adds confusion without clarifying anything. It is not front-loaded with useful information.

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

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

With 9 heterogeneous parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool does, what it returns, and how the parameters are used. It does none of this. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds nothing that maps the parameters to the stated arithmetic behavior. It does not explain how 'ref', 'city', 'json', etc. relate to evaluation. The description is actively unhelpful, leaving agents to guess which parameter, if any, is the 'expression.'

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,' implying an arithmetic evaluator, but the 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) bear no relation to arithmetic expressions. It fails to explain what the tool actually does with these inputs, making the purpose unclear and misleading rather than merely vague.

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 calc-eval versus any of the 26 sibling tools. No context, no exclusions, no alternative routing. The description offers zero help for an agent deciding whether to invoke 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that page content is not stored, but it fails to mention that many parameters are discarded after validation (as noted in the schema descriptions) and that the tool appears to handle multiple data types (URLs, cities, JSON, file paths, timezones, etc.). The actual behavior is much broader than described, and there is no mention of errors, rate limits, or return structure beyond the three URL fields.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, but it is under-specified given the tool's complexity. Two sentences omit critical information about the other parameters and the tool's multi-purpose nature. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 explains the URL behavior, leaving the purpose and expected behavior for all other parameters undocumented. An agent cannot know what the tool does with city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc., nor what it returns for those inputs. This is a significant completeness gap.

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 clear explanation. The description adds no semantic value for parameters; it only describes the URL-related output. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific action for URLs (return host, scheme, HTTP status) and adds a distinguishing behavioral note ('Page content is not stored'). However, it only describes the URL use case while the schema exposes 9 parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.), each implying additional checks. The description does not convey the tool's broader scope, so an agent would under-estimate its capabilities and might misroute requests.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings (normalize-url, fetch-status, web-fetch, etc.). The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or preferred contexts. The single hint ('Page content is not stored') implies a lightweight check, but it is not explicit about when to choose this over a content-fetching tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The only behavioral disclosure is 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy note but reveals nothing about side effects, network access, file reads, or what happens to inputs beyond that. It doesn't say whether the tool is read-only, performs validation, or modifies state. For a tool with 9 optional parameters and diverse inputs, this is severely lacking.

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 technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than succinct. It omits essential information and doesn't front-load a clear purpose. Conciseness without substance is not a virtue here.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the return format, what classification means, what the tool computes, or how it handles different parameter combinations. This is a complex tool, and the description is completely 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%, so each parameter has some inline description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate to the classification outcome. Since the schema already documents parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to explain how parameters contribute to the tool's purpose.

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

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

The description says 'Show how this request is classified' – it names a verb and a resource, but 'classified' is ambiguous and doesn't specify what kind of classification or what the tool actually does. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like domain-shape or validate-json, which have clear purposes. The phrase is almost a placeholder for a specific capability.

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 use this tool versus the many sibling tools that perform specific checks (browser-url-ok, calc-eval, etc.). The description provides no context, no examples, and no exclusion criteria. An agent cannot infer when this tool is 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 carries full burden. It clarifies that WHOIS/ownership data is not retrieved, but omits that the tool performs shape checks (per schema) and discards inputs, and does not disclose return behavior or side effects for the many parameters.

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

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

The description is one short sentence, which is concise, but it is inaccurate and incomplete. It does not earn its place because it misrepresents the tool's scope, so brevity is not a virtue here.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description is woefully insufficient. It does not explain how the tool processes each parameter, what it returns, or when it is appropriate, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no meaning for parameters—it only mentions hostname splitting while the schema includes a 'host' parameter plus many others. The description fails to connect itself to the actual parameters, and may mislead an agent into thinking only hostname input is valid.

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

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

The description claims a specific action (split hostname into labels) but the schema exposes 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, json, path, zone, query) that are discarded after shape checks. It does not describe the actual multi-purpose validation behavior, making the purpose vague and partially misleading.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like figma-url-shape or github-repo-shape. The description does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a non-destructive HEAD request but does not disclose that most parameters are discarded after checks, that no disk access occurs, or what statuses are returned. The single mention of 'URL' contradicts the schema's broader scope, adding confusion about 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no filler. However, its brevity comes at the cost of completeness; it does not earn its place because it omits essential information about the tool's multi-purpose nature. It is front-loaded with the main action but fails to convey the full scope.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It only explains the URL case and leaves agents without guidance on how to use other parameters, what the response format is, or any constraints. This is inadequate for a tool with such a broad schema.

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

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

The schema descriptions cover all nine parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only references 'URL' while ignoring the other eight parameters, which is not helpful for agents trying to understand their role.

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 ('HEAD a public URL and return status only'), which is clear for the URL case. However, the input schema includes nine unrelated parameters (city, timezone, JSON, etc.) that the description does not address, making the tool's overall purpose ambiguous and potentially misleading. It does not 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or any context that would help an agent decide between 'fetch-status' and similar siblings like 'browser-url-ok' or 'normalize-url'. 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Path discarded.' It does not mention whether the tool validates, extracts, returns anything, requires authentication, or has side effects. The parameter descriptions say fields are 'discarded after the shape check,' but what a 'shape check' does is never explained.

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 has no wasted words, but the second sentence 'Path discarded' is cryptic and does not clarify the tool's behavior. It is concise but not effectively structured, as it omits essential context while including a confusing detail.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use it, what the primary input is, or what constitutes a valid Figma URL. The sibling tools suggest a shape-checking pattern, but nothing here tells the agent how to call it correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify which parameter is the primary input (likely 'url') or how the others relate to Figma. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the documentation, but the description does not compensate for the confusion created by the extraneous 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 specific verb and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL'), but it is vague about what 'parse' means and what is returned. The nine unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) and the cryptic 'Path discarded' add confusion, making the actual function unclear. It does not 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. No mention of conditions, exclusions, or related sibling tools. The description gives the agent no basis for selecting it over other URL or 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'No disk access,' which is a useful safety trait, but it does not mention what the tool actually returns (boolean? error?), how it handles invalid inputs, or what happens when multiple parameters are provided. The description is silent on the behavior for the non-path parameters entirely.

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, terse sentence with no fluff, which is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified for the tool's actual parameter breadth, so conciseness comes at the cost of clarity. It is not effectively front-loaded because the core scope is misrepresented.

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 covering distinct domains (URLs, JSON, timezones, searches, etc.) and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It only addresses the 'path' case and provides no information about return formats, validation behavior, or when the other parameters are relevant. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool for non-path inputs.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so every parameter already has a semantic explanation. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, and it only references 'path' while ignoring the other 8 parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description specifies a verb ('Check'), a resource ('a path'), and a safety qualifier ('looks safe'), plus a side-effect note. However, the input schema accepts 9 unrelated parameters (URLs, JSON, city, timezone, etc.), so the description only covers one of many use cases and is misleading about the tool's overall scope. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling shape-checkers.

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-checking tools (browser-url-ok, domain-shape, validate-json, etc.). The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits which input type.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'via Open-Meteo', implying a network call, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens to the various inputs (some are described as 'discarded' in the schema), whether there are rate limits, or what the response format is. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 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 wasted words. However, it is under-specified, not concise in the sense of packing essential information. It earns a 3 because it is short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of 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?

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the output format, which parameters are relevant, or how to construct a valid request. Given the complexity and the lack of structured help, the description is severely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description does not add meaning beyond the schema. More importantly, it does not identify which of the 9 parameters is used to determine the place, and the schema descriptions themselves are confusing (e.g., 'city' says 'for a public weather hint' which contradicts the geo purpose). The description fails to compensate for this ambiguity.

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

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

The description states a clear output (latitude and longitude for a place) and a data source (Open-Meteo), but it is ambiguous about how the place is specified. The tool name 'geo-hint' and the sibling set include weather-hint, so the purpose is somewhat distinct, but the description does not clarify which parameter carries the place (e.g., city, query, or another).

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. With 27 sibling tools including weather-hint and lib-docs-hint, there is no statement about scenarios, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool instead of another.

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 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL' and does not reveal that the tool accepts and discards many other fields, what it returns, or whether it validates or extracts. The schema hints at broader behavior (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), but the description does not address this, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It has no wasted words. However, it may be too terse given the tool's apparent complexity, but for what it states, it is appropriately structured.

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 and no output schema or annotations, yet the description only covers one narrow aspect (GitHub URL parsing). It does not explain the tool's broader functionality (e.g., validating JSON, checking file paths, providing weather hints), nor does it describe return values or side effects. An agent cannot fully understand how to use this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain how the 'url' parameter relates to owner/repo parsing or clarify the purpose of the discarded fields. Since the schema handles parameter semantics adequately, a baseline score 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 clearly states the action: parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain-shape or jira-key-shape by name and function. However, it does not mention that the schema includes many other unrelated fields (city, feed, json, etc.), which could mislead an agent 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 alternatives such as domain-shape or file-path-ok. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the name and description, 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that titles are discarded, but does not disclose output format, side effects, or any constraints. The behavioral disclosure is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices necessary context for brevity.

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 states the core action. It omits any indication of which parameter to use, what the return value looks like, or any call details, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. More importantly, the nine parameters appear unrelated to the tool's purpose (e.g., city, zone, path), and the description does not explain how they relate to the count, which could confuse an agent.

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 counts current Hacker News front-page stories, a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from any similar counting tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, return format, or whether it is read-only. The noun-phrase description gives no insight into what happens when the tool is invoked, leaving the agent to guess.

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 unnecessary words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, and it lacks any structure or key information that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose or usage. It is efficient but not sufficiently 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the tool's overall function, what it returns, or how the parameters are used together. The schema documents each parameter but the description fails to tie them into a coherent operation, making the tool inadequate for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 9 parameters are documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without exceeding it. The tool name suggests a relation to timezones, but the description does not clarify how parameters like 'ref' or 'url' relate to timezone names.

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 that the tool provides 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls', indicating it is a data resource for timezone names. However, it does not specify the actual operation (e.g., returns a list, validates a name, etc.), leaving the purpose somewhat vague. It is not a tautology but lacks a clear verb and resource action.

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 like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. It only mentions 'for clock calls' without explaining when this tool is the appropriate choice or what distinguishes it from 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. It states the tool fetches and returns counts, but it does not disclose error handling, network behavior, or that the tool likely ignores most of its 9 parameters. The parameter descriptions repeatedly mention 'discarded after the shape check,' which contradicts the stated purpose of fetching robots.txt, leaving the actual behavior unclear.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and output. It is appropriately sized, though it omits critical information about parameter usage, which prevents a higher score.

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

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

The tool is complex with 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description is far too brief to explain how the parameters relate to the robots.txt fetch, which parameter to provide, or what 'group counts' means. An agent cannot confidently invoke the tool correctly based on this definition alone.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description does not add any parameter-specific meaning. The parameter descriptions are generic (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint') and unrelated to robots.txt, making it impossible to know which parameter actually drives the fetch. The tool description does not clarify the role of the url or any other parameter, so the schema's descriptions are not helpful for this tool's purpose.

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

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

The description states a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (public robots.txt) with an explicit outcome (return group counts only). It is clear and distinguishes itself from sibling shape-check tools by indicating a network fetch. However, the input schema contains many unrelated parameters (city, zone, query, path, etc.) that are not mentioned in the description, creating ambiguity about which parameter is actually used, 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like web-fetch or fetch-status. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which the tool is appropriate. An agent has no basis to decide between this and sibling fetch/check tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'Key discarded,' implying the input is not persisted, but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or the fate of the other eight parameters. The schema descriptions already mention 'discarded' for many params, so the description adds nothing beyond the 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 very brief (two sentences) with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. The structure lacks any breakdown of what the tool does with the parameters, making it too sparse to be effective. It is concise in length but not appropriately structured for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Given the high parameter count (9), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the return value, which parameter is the Jira key, how the other parameters are used, or any edge cases. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how parameters relate to the Jira key shape check; it is unclear which parameter is the actual key. Per the baseline rule, since the schema covers all parameters, a score of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to clarify the critical mapping.

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') and resource ('Jira issue key shape'), but it does not explain which of the nine schema parameters represents the key, nor does it distinguish this from sibling shape-checking tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. The purpose is understandable but ambiguous in the context of the provided schema.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-checking tools (e.g., domain-shape, figma-url-shape, wiki-title-ok). The description gives no context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Body discarded,' which hints at a lean response, but nothing about permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what 'library docs' means. The description does not clarify how the tool behaves with the diverse parameters in the 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 short but under-specified; brevity here is not conciseness because it omits essential information. The single sentence does not earn its place – it provides almost no actionable content beyond the tool name itself.

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 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. An agent cannot determine what inputs to provide, what output to expect, or how the tool relates to its siblings. The mismatch between description and schema makes this tool effectively unusable without additional context.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, but they are generic ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'City name for a public weather hint') and do not map to the stated purpose of checking a library docs URL. The description adds no clarification about which parameters are required or how they interact. The tool's purpose is misaligned with the schema's parameter semantics.

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

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

The description states it returns 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL' but the input schema includes nine parameters, many unrelated (city, zone, query, json, etc.). It does not specify which parameter is the URL or what the tool actually does with the others. It also fails to distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch, which also handle HTTP 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling HTTP/URL tools. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would select this tool. An agent cannot infer from the description when to pick lib-docs-hint over fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url.

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 does state that 'Values discarded' – a useful trait – but fails to mention side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens with the many optional parameters. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with zero redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes a behavioral note. Perfectly 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 but the description does not explain how they relate to the stated purpose of counting keys in a JSON object. There is no output schema, so return value is unexplained. The disconnect between the short purpose and the wide parameter set leaves an agent without enough context 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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds 'Values discarded' which aligns with the per-parameter notes like 'discarded after the shape check'. However, the description does not clarify which parameter is the primary input (e.g., 'json' vs 'ref') or how the other parameters relate to counting keys. It adds marginal 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 clearly states a specific action: 'Count keys in a JSON object' with a resource (JSON object). It is a distinct verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like validate-json or hn-front-count, which also deal with JSON objects or counting. The name 'memory-key-count' suggests a memory context not captured in the description.

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 siblings. There is no mention of alternative tools, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The description provides no context for selecting it 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 provided, the description must disclose behavior. It states that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it entirely omits the behavior of the other eight parameters (e.g., ref, city, feed), whose schema descriptions mention 'discarded after the shape check' – a behavior not explained in the main description. This leaves significant ambiguity about what the tool actually does with non-URL 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and direct. However, given the complexity of the schema (9 parameters), the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, none required, and no output schema. The description explains only the URL handling and says nothing about the other parameters, the shape-checking behavior implied by the schema, the return format beyond the three components, or error conditions. This is grossly inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but those descriptions are confusing and misaligned with the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'ref' is described as 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check', which implies a shape-checking behavior not mentioned in the main description. The parameter descriptions do not clarify how the url parameter relates to the others or how to use them correctly.

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

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

The description clearly states the core function: return origin, host, and path for a URL, with query and fragment dropped. This is a specific verb+resource statement. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'domain-shape' or 'browser-url-ok', and the schema includes many unrelated parameters, so the overall purpose is only partially clarified.

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 'domain-shape' or 'fetch-status'. It does not mention any context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

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

The description notes 'No browser is launched,' which is a behavioral trait, but it does not disclose whether the tool makes network requests, performs a syntactic check, or what happens with the other parameters. The parameter descriptions hint at 'discarded after the shape check' for some fields, but the main description does not confirm this behavior. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and fails to provide adequate 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 with the purpose front-loaded. It is efficient and to the point, though it may be too sparse to be helpful. The conciseness is appropriate, but the lack of substance prevents 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool's behavior is highly underspecified. The agent cannot determine what the tool returns, what 'opened' means, how the parameters affect the check, or what the actual mechanism is. This is completely inadequate for a tool with this many parameters and no other documentation.

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), so the description does not need to add parameter information. The description itself provides no additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no value beyond the schema, but it does not need to.

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 checks whether a URL can be opened, which is a clear verb+resource, but it does not define what 'opened' means (e.g., syntactic validity, network reachability) and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status. The purpose is not vague enough to be a 2, but it lacks the specificity to be a 4 or 5.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any sibling tools, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this tool should be selected over others. This is a complete absence of usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the query is discarded, which is a behavioral trait, but it does not explain the fate of the other 8 parameters, nor what 'count characters' precisely returns (code points, bytes, etc.). It also fails to mention that the tool appears to perform a shape check on all provided fields, as implied by the schema descriptions. The description is misleadingly narrow.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with the core action stated first. It is concise and front-loaded. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, which is penalized elsewhere, but for conciseness alone it is well-structured.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only mentions the 'query' parameter and gives no information about return values, error behavior, or the role of the other parameters. For a tool this complex, this is severely incomplete. An agent cannot reliably call it without guessing how to interpret the extra parameters and what the response will be.

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 every parameter is documented with a description. The description itself adds no additional meaning beyond identifying 'query' as the primary parameter; it does not clarify why the other 8 parameters exist or how they relate to the tool's purpose. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and this description does not elevate 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Count characters in a search query.' It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like 'memory-key-count' (which counts memory keys) and 'think-steps' (which likely counts thinking steps). However, it does not acknowledge the tool's 9-parameter schema, leaving the primary purpose somewhat narrow.

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 context, exclusions, or alternative tools. An agent cannot determine whether to prefer 'search-query-len' over 'memory-key-count' or 'think-steps' based on the description.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about side effects, return values, or how parameters are processed. The schema hints at 'discarded after the shape check' but the description itself is silent.

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 structurally concise, but it is under-specified. It doesn't earn its length because it omits essential information about usage and behavior.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or any constraints. An agent cannot correctly invoke it.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% so each parameter has a description, but the descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' has no connection to HTTP status codes). The tool description adds no meaning and fails to reconcile the mismatch.

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

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

The description says 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' – it identifies a resource but no verb or action. It doesn't explain how the tool is invoked or what it does with the 9 optional parameters, which appear unrelated to status codes. The purpose is vague and not clearly distinguished from siblings like 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many siblings, the agent gets no hint about 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?

The description discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention that all 9 parameters are similarly ignored (or used only for shape checks as the schema suggests). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and this partial disclosure is insufficient for a tool with so many parameters.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that gets straight to the point: 'Return a three-step thinking template. Prompt discarded.' Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It's an exemplar of concise writing.

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, yet the description doesn't explain why these parameters exist, whether they affect the output, or what the template looks like. The 'Prompt discarded' line hints at input being ignored, but the agent is left uncertain about the actual behavior and the structure of the returned template. This is a significant gap for a tool that could be called with any of these parameters.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema; it doesn't even mention the parameters. The schema already documents each parameter and its 'discarded' behavior, so the description contributes nothing extra.

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

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

The description states a specific action: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is clear and distinct from sibling tools, which all perform data operations. However, it is very terse and doesn't elaborate on what the template contains or why the tool exists, so it's not a 5.

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

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

The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any scenario, prerequisite, or exclusion. An agent has no idea when to invoke this over any other sibling tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the result (current time) but does not reveal that most of the 9 parameters are discarded, that only 'zone' is relevant, or how invalid zones are handled. This is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is extremely short but under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential context about parameter usage and behavior, so brevity is not a virtue here.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, most of which are marked as discarded, the description does not explain the tool's actual interface. The lack of output schema and the failure to mention the 'zone' parameter make the description inadequate for correct invocation.

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

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

Although the schema covers all parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds no value by connecting to the relevant parameter. It never mentions 'zone' or clarifies that other parameters are ignored. The description fails to guide the agent on which parameter to populate.

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 time in a named IANA timezone, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like utc-time or iana-zones, which may also provide time-related information.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or reference to siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Current UTC timestamp,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose that parameters are discarded or that the tool performs shape checks. The schema descriptions hint at this, but the tool description itself is silent on side effects or safety profile.

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 given the tool's complexity (9 parameters). While brevity is a virtue, it sacrifices necessary context. The front-loaded information is minimal, and the description does not earn its place by conveying critical 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain why the parameters exist, what the tool actually does beyond returning a timestamp, and how it relates to sibling tools. The agent would have to infer the tool's real purpose from the schema descriptions, which is not ideal.

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 clearly documented (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not compensate for any missing parameter context because the schema already handles 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 states the tool returns the current UTC timestamp, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explain the purpose of the 9 optional parameters or how they relate to the timestamp, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'. The purpose is clear for the output but ambiguous for the overall tool behavior.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or recommended scenarios. An agent has no basis to decide between 'utc-time' and similar time-related tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only discloses that the body is discarded, implying no side effects. It does not mention the return format, error handling for invalid JSON, or that other parameters are apparently ignored. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with many parameters.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it is so terse that it omits critical context about the parameter set and return behavior. It earns its place as a statement of purpose but not as a complete tool 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain why there are so many parameters, which ones are relevant, what the tool returns, or how invalid JSON is handled. An agent cannot confidently use this tool based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema; it only refers vaguely to 'body', which is not a schema property. It does not clarify the role of the other 8 parameters, but since the schema documents each, the description doesn't need to repeat them. Still, it adds no value.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool checks whether a body is valid JSON, which is a specific verb and resource. However, with 9 parameters and only one mention of 'body', it's ambiguous which parameter is the JSON input. The schema clarifies it as 'json', but the description doesn't map 'body' to that parameter, so some clarity is lost.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools, conditions for use, or when not to use it. An agent gets zero direction on selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the use of Open-Meteo but does not disclose that only the 'city' parameter is used and the others are ignored, nor does it mention rate limits, error behavior, or what happens with invalid inputs. The schema hints that parameters are 'discarded,' but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is under-specified; the brevity is not a virtue because it omits essential usage and parameter information. It is structurally simple but lacks completeness.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, which parameters are actually used, how to handle the many irrelevant fields, or any limitations. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly with confidence, as the schema is misleading and the description does not clarify.

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%, but the descriptions are generic and do not clarify which parameters are relevant to weather. For example, 'ref' is described as 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check,' which is unrelated to weather. The description itself adds no parameter guidance, so an agent would be confused about how to fill the schema for a weather request. The description fails to compensate for the schema's misleading breadth.

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: 'Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo.' It identifies the verb (get), resource (temperature for a city), and data source (Open-Meteo). It is distinguishable from siblings like geo-hint (geolocation) and timezone, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The clarity is good but not perfect because the input schema implies many other uses.

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 exclusions or contexts, and does not reference sibling tools. An agent would not know whether to pick this over other hint tools 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the body is discarded and that the tool returns status and content type. It does not disclose that many parameters are effectively discarded after validation, what the output format is, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the key caveat about the body. However, given the complexity of nine parameters, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, though it remains efficient.

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

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

The description is incomplete for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. It does not explain how the parameters affect the result, what the return format looks like, or how the tool should be used in a workflow. An agent would have to rely solely on the schema, which provides parameter-level detail but no higher-level context about the tool's role. This is a significant gap.

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 has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is individually documented. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Since the schema covers all parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat what is already in 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-resource pair: it returns HTTP status and content type for a public URL, and explicitly notes the body is discarded. This is clear and not a tautology, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, which may have overlapping purposes.

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 fetch-status or browser-url-ok. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios that favor this tool. The multiple parameters are not explained in the description, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only discloses that the title is discarded after the call, but does not state whether the tool performs a network request, is read-only, has error handling, or what it returns. The note about discarding is a minor transparency point, but overall behavior is underspecified.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. It states the core action and a behavioral note. This is appropriately sized for the information it provides, though the lack of content limits its usefulness.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, none required, and no output schema or annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not specify which parameter is the title, what the return value looks like, or any usage context. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the description and schema alone.

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

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

The description does not map the concept of a 'Wikipedia title' to any of the 9 parameters. The schema provides descriptions for each parameter, but they are generic and unrelated to Wikipedia (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint'). The description fails to clarify which parameter holds the title, making it impossible for an agent to know how to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from generic URL checkers. However, it does not explicitly mention how the title is supplied or differentiate it from sibling tools that might also check URLs or titles, so it lacks full clarity about the intended input.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer when a Wikipedia title check is appropriate. This is a significant gap given the large sibling list.

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