Pacific/Guadalcanal clock

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully state the return contents and explicitly notes that 'Task text discarded,' which is a helpful side-effect disclosure. However, it does not explain how the six unrelated-looking parameters relate to the lookup, nor does it address network, auth, or cost implications.

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 three short, purposeful sentences: purpose first, return values second, and a concise behavioral caveat last. There is no filler and no repetition of schema content, making it compact and front-loaded.

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

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

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description names the return contents but never tells the agent which of the six parameters, or combination, must be supplied to trigger the lookup. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the schema's unrelated parameters leaves a significant gap in callability.

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 six parameters already have descriptions in the input schema, so the baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and the mention of 'Task text' does not map to any schema parameter. This is parity rather than added value, keeping the score at 3.

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

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

The description opens with a specific verb and object, 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid),' and lists four concrete deliverables: CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, and remote MCP hops. This is not a tautology and gives the agent a clear sense of what the tool does. It loses a point because 'Monid' is unexplained and there is no contrast with sibling tools.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the listed siblings, nor any mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. The intended trigger is only implied by the phrase 'Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway,' leaving routing decisions entirely to inference.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of explaining side effects, network behavior, permissions, or failure modes. It only says no browser is launched, so it leaves significant behavioral ambiguity about whether the tool makes network requests, writes anything, or has side effects.

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: it states the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a useful clarifying constraint in the second. Every word earns its place.

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

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

There is no output schema and no description of return values, success/failure signals, error conditions, or what 'can be opened' concretely means. With nine optional parameters and no guidance on which matter, the description is not complete enough for reliable use.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, most of the parameters appear unrelated to checking a URL, such as 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint', and 'IANA timezone name'. The tool description does not explain which parameters are actually relevant or how they are used, so the schema descriptions do not meaningfully clarify the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('check') and the resource ('whether a URL can be opened'), and the negative 'No browser is launched' helps distinguish it from browser-based tools. However, 'opened' is somewhat ambiguous about whether this means an HTTP fetch, a browser navigation, or another kind of reachability check.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like fetch-status, web-fetch, or playwright-url-ok. The only hint is that no browser is launched, which is implicit and insufficient for choosing among the related URL-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?

The only behavioral claim is 'Expression discarded', which hints at a non-persistent operation but is unexplained and conflicts with the expectation that 'evaluate' produces a result. There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing return values, side effects, and failure modes, and it does not do so.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently specified. The cryptic second sentence and the total omission of parameter mapping mean the terseness detracts from usability instead of helping.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, two unrelated sentences are wholly insufficient. An agent has no way to know the expected input, the output, or when to select this tool over its siblings.

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 documents each of the seven properties, but none of them represents the arithmetic expression the tool claims to evaluate. The description adds no mapping between its intended input and the actual parameters, leaving an agent unable to determine what to pass.

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 phrase 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic' gives a surface-level purpose, but 'Expression discarded' makes it unclear whether the tool computes a result or merely validates a shape. The input schema contains no arithmetic expression parameter, so the description does not match the actual schema and does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling shape/check tools.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use calc-eval versus any alternative. Despite a long list of sibling shape, validation, and fetch tools, the description offers no context, exclusions, or 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 disclosure burden and does offer one useful trait: 'Page content is not stored.' But it never explains that the tool can perform multiple unrelated checks (shape, length, JSON validation, timezone, weather hints) and what side effects or return values accompany those paths, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema alone.

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

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

Two tight sentences with no filler; the primary behavior is front-loaded and the privacy note earns its place. The brevity is earned, though for a nine-parameter tool this economy comes at the cost of missing information (captured under contextual completeness).

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters spanning unrelated domains, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description explains only the URL case and omits what the other seven parameters do, how results are returned, and how the tool relates to overlapping siblings. An agent cannot reliably predict behavior for the non-URL 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; each parameter has a terse but understandable schema note (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the one 'url' parameter it implies, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific behavior — 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL' — which is a clear verb+resource. However, the input schema exposes nine unrelated parameters (weather city, RSS feed, JSON text, IANA zone, file path, search text), so the stated purpose covers only a fraction of the tool's actual surface and does not differentiate it from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url.

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

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

No when-to-use guidance is given and no alternatives are named; an agent cannot tell when to pick this over fetch-status, normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. The eight non-URL parameters are never explained in the description, so there is no context for when they would be relevant.

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 present, the description carries the full burden and adds exactly one behavioral fact: 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a useful privacy disclosure. It never discloses whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, makes network calls, or what happens when multiple parameters are supplied simultaneously. For an 8-parameter tool with no annotation safety profile, this is thin.

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

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

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the privacy note second, containing zero wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity comes at the cost of specification depth.

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

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description is only two sentences for a tool with 8 heterogeneous parameters and 28 closely related siblings. It omits the response shape, how parameters interact, whether multiple params can be passed, and the classification taxonomy, leaving an agent unable to predict the tool's result.

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

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

Schema coverage is effectively 100% - every parameter has its own description, several noting it is 'discarded after the check' - so the schema carries the semantic load and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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

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

The description states a verb ('Show') and a resource ('this request') and names the output (a classification), so it is not a tautology. However, 'classified' is undefined: the tool accepts 8 unrelated parameter types (ref, url, city, feed, json, path), and the description never explains what categories or labels the classification produces, nor how it relates to the ~28 sibling tools. This reads as vague-purpose rather than clear-but-undifferentiated.

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 call this tool versus siblings such as validate-json, normalize-url, or file-path-ok, even though the parameter names map directly to those tools' domains. The only implied context is 'when you want a classification,' with no exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives. This is effectively no usage guidance for a dispatcher-like 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 burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the non-lookup behavior (no WHOIS/ownership), which is useful, but it does not mention output format, invalid-host handling, or the fact that only the 'host' parameter is relevant among the many schema 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The qualifier about WHOIS/ownership earns its place by setting the tool's boundary.

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 simple parser the description communicates the main behavior, but with no output schema and a schema full of apparently unrelated fields, an agent would benefit from knowing the exact return shape and that only 'host' is consumed.

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 high: every parameter, including 'host', has a description, so the description adds only the 'labels' detail and the WHOIS exclusion. That is reasonable but does not go 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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'Split a hostname into labels' — and adds a clear boundary with 'without WHOIS or ownership data'. This distinguishes domain-shape from sibling shape/URL tools that may resolve or enrich hostnames.

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?

It states the tool's context: use it for syntactic hostname splitting. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' excludes ownership/resolution use cases, though no sibling tool is named as an explicit alternative.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does usefully reveal that the operation is a HEAD request and that only status is returned. But it omits broader behavioral details such as how errors are reported, redirect handling, rate limits, or the fact that the schema accepts many 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 sentence with no filler, front-loads the verb and resource, and communicates the core behavior efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-line description is insufficient. It does not clarify which parameter to use, whether the tool only operates on URLs, or how it relates to the many sibling URL/status tools.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the nine optional parameters already described, including discard behavior and access constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a clear action and resource: 'HEAD a public URL and return status only.' It is specific and tells an agent the tool returns no body, only the HTTP status. It does not differentiate from siblings like browser-url-ok or playwright-url-ok, but it is not vague or tautological.

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

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

The phrase 'return status only' implies the tool is for status-only checks rather than fetching content, giving some usage signal. However, it does not name any sibling tools, state when not to use it, or explain how it differs from URL-checking 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the path is discarded, which is useful, but it does not say whether the tool validates, normalizes, extracts a file key, errors on non-Figma URLs, or has any side effects.

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 compact: two short phrases with no filler. The core action and one key behavior are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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

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

This is a 9-parameter tool with 0 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. A one-line description is far from sufficient: it does not explain which parameter is the Figma URL, how the generic schema relates to the tool, what the result looks like, or what happens for invalid input.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail and does not identify which of the 9 generic schema parameters should carry the Figma URL, so it adds no extra semantic 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 names a specific verb ('Parse') and a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), and the 'Path discarded' detail adds a distinguishing behavioral note. It is clear enough to separate this from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or normalize-url, though it does not state what a successful parse returns.

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 intended context is implied: use this when you have a Figma file URL to parse. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative sibling to choose for other URL shapes or normalizations.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'No disk access,' which is useful, but it does not describe the return format (e.g., boolean, error details), edge cases (empty path, absolute vs relative), or whether other parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) are supported. The description gives a partial behavior profile only.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a key behavioral fact. It is appropriately brief for the limited scope it covers, though 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, yet the description only addresses one aspect ('path') and provides no return information. The mismatch between the description (path-only) and the schema (many unrelated fields) creates confusion about the tool's actual scope. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 description does not need to add parameter meaning. The schema itself provides clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'File path to check; no disk access'). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema carries the burden, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' It also adds a non-obvious constraint, 'No disk access,' which clarifies it is a syntactic check. However, it does not differentiate from sibling shape-checking tools like browser-url-ok or domain-shape, and 'safe' is undefined (e.g., path traversal, invalid characters).

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of siblings, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the large set of sibling shape-checking tools (browser-url-ok, domain-shape, etc.), the lack of differentiation leaves an agent to guess which tool fits.

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, but it only implies an external Open-Meteo call and coordinate output. It does not mention prerequisites, failure modes, side effects, or the fact that most schema parameters are described as discarded, leaving important behavior unexplained.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the key output and provider. It is concise and easy to scan, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's schema 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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and seven parameters with several marked as discarded, but the description provides only one sentence. It omits which parameter is required, what the output shape is, and how unrelated parameters should be treated, making the context 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?

The input schema has descriptions for all seven parameters, so the schema already carries parameter-level meaning and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the general notion of 'a place,' which likely maps to the city parameter but is not explicitly connected to it. It does not meaningfully improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, which conveys the core function clearly. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the intended action is evident. It does not differentiate from siblings like weather-hint, though the name and output make the distinction reasonably clear.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as weather-hint or timezone. The description also fails to specify which parameter supplies the 'place,' so an agent cannot confidently determine invocation conditions.

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

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

For a parser, the core behavior is transparent: it parses owner and repo and does not imply mutation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not disclose how invalid or non-GitHub URLs are handled, and it does not explain why the schema includes many unrelated fields like city, json, and path.

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. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it easy to scan and parse.

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

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

There is no output schema and the description does not describe what the parsed result looks like or how errors are surfaced for non-GitHub URLs. The presence of many seemingly unrelated parameters creates ambiguity that the description does not resolve, so the agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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

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

All parameters have schema descriptions, so the description does not need to cover them. The relevant 'url' parameter is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which is somewhat helpful but does not clarify that it should be a GitHub repository URL.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'), making the tool's core function unmistakable. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling shape tools like jira-key-shape or domain-shape by explicitly scoping it to GitHub URLs.

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

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

The description implies this tool is for extracting owner and repo from GitHub URLs, but it never explicitly says when to use it instead of alternatives such as domain-shape or figma-url-shape. There are no exclusions or alternative conditions stated.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses that titles are discarded and that the data is current, which is useful. However, it does not mention the return format, network behavior, error handling, or whether any input parameters affect the count.

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 no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about discarded titles is separate and clear. Every word earns its place.

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 minimally adequate for a simple count operation, but with nine optional parameters and no output schema, key gaps remain. It does not explain what the parameters are for, whether any are required, or what the tool returns. The agent must infer too much for full confidence.

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 applies. The tool description adds no additional meaning about any of the nine optional parameters, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema for parameter semantics. This is acceptable but not enhanced.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Count') and resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), making the tool's function immediately clear. 'Titles discarded' further clarifies scope by stating what is not returned. This differentiates it from sibling tools like web-fetch or wiki-title-ok without ambiguity.

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

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

The description implies the tool should be used when an agent needs the current count of Hacker News front-page stories, and 'titles discarded' implies it is not for extracting titles. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be preferred.

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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the resource is, not whether the tool returns a list, whether arguments affect the output, or that certain parameters are discarded. The schema notes discarding behavior, but the description itself adds little behavioral context.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core idea: common IANA timezone names for clock calls. It is easy to parse and contains no filler. The brevity is more under-specification than poor structure.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the definition leaves important invocation details unclear. An agent cannot confidently tell that the many optional parameters may be ignored or that the return value is a simple catalog of names. It is adequate only for the simplest no-argument invocation, which is not explicitly stated.

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 covers all seven parameters with individual descriptions, so schema coverage is high and the baseline score applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and notably it does not explain how any of the parameters relate to the timezone-names output. This is a missed opportunity, but the schema already carries the parameter documentation.

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

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

The description identifies the resource (IANA timezone names) and its intended purpose (clock calls), making it clear the tool provides a list of timezone labels rather than performing a conversion. However, it lacks a verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone or utc-time.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It never says that this is the source for valid values to pass to timezone or utc-time, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The use case must be inferred entirely from the name and the phrase 'for clock calls.'

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool fetches a public resource and returns only group counts, not the full robots.txt. But it does not explain error behavior, redirects, timeouts, or what happens when robots.txt is missing, which are relevant for a network-fetching tool.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Words like 'public' and 'only' add useful scope. It is appropriately concise, though the conciseness comes at the cost of omitting parameter semantics.

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 confusing multi-parameter schema, the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain which parameter supplies the robots.txt URL, what 'group counts' means structurally, or what the return value contains. An agent would likely need to open the schema and still be unsure how 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?

The input schema contains eight parameters with high schema coverage, but the descriptions are disconnected from the tool's stated purpose: url is 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', host is 'Public hostname', and none of the parameters is described as the robots.txt URL. The tool description adds no parameter mapping, so an agent cannot confidently determine which argument identifies the target robots.txt.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a public robots.txt' and narrows the output to 'group counts only.' It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like web-fetch or fetch-status.

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

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

The phrase 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only' implies when to use it: when an agent needs only robots.txt group counts rather than the full file. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as web-fetch or normalize-url, leaving the when-to-use guidance implicit.

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 behavioral details, but it only cryptically states 'Key discarded.' It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it is a boolean or a validation result, or any side effects. This is far below the burden required for a shape-checking tool.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but conciseness is undermined by under-specification. It omits essential operational details (which parameter, what output) and would benefit from additional sentences to clarify usage. The 'Key discarded' note is cryptic and unhelpful.

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 grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine the input format, expected return value, or how to invoke it correctly. This is completely inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no parameter semantics. It does not map any parameter to the Jira key being checked, and the schema descriptions are generic ('Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description fails to connect the parameters to its core purpose, leaving the agent unable to determine which input is relevant.

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

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

The description states a specific operation ('Check a Jira issue key shape') but fails to identify which of the 9 parameters carries the key. The input schema lists generic fields like 'ref' and 'query' with no hint that any is a Jira key. This ambiguity makes it unclear how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 sibling shape-checkers like 'domain-shape' or 'github-repo-shape'. The description offers no context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess based on 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?

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavior. It mentions 'Body discarded' but does not explain side effects, network access, or how the tool handles the various input parameters. Very little is transparent about its actual runtime 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 short (one sentence) but not well structured. It fails to front-load the essential information about which input to provide and what output to expect. Brevity here leads to ambiguity rather than 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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not say what the tool returns (e.g., HTTP status code, boolean, hint), how to combine parameters, or what constitutes a valid library docs URL. An agent would be unable to use this tool correctly based solely on the description.

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

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

The schema covers 100% of parameters, but the descriptions are generic and mostly say values are 'discarded after the shape check' or similar. The main parameter (likely 'url') is not explicitly identified, and the coherence between parameters and the stated purpose is missing.

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 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL' which gives a general goal, but it is vague and does not specify which parameter is the URL or how the many unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, etc.) fit in. The purpose is not clearly delineated from sibling tools.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. The description offers no context for selection based on use case.

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 states 'Values discarded,' which is a useful detail, but it does not clarify that the operation is read-only, which parameter is actually consumed, or what happens on invalid JSON. The schema's param descriptions already mention discarding, so the description adds little beyond that.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with zero wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a behavioral note. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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

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

The tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain which parameter contains the JSON, what the return value is (presumably a count), or how the other parameters are handled. This is a significant gap for an agent to use it correctly. The description is far too sparse for the complexity of the schema.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (all 9 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it does not specify that the 'json' parameter is the one being counted. The description is neutral and does not hinder understanding, but it also does not enhance it.

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

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

The description clearly states the action: 'Count keys in a JSON object.' It is specific and unambiguous about the operation. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like validate-json or domain-shape, which also handle JSON, so it misses the chance to distinguish itself.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. For a tool with 9 optional parameters, there is no hint which scenario it fits.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one meaningful behavior—query and fragment are dropped—and the 'Return...' phrasing implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation. However, it does not mention behavior on invalid URLs, error handling, or any network/validation side effects.

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 no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the note about dropped components is directly relevant, so every word earns its place.

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 core output—origin, host, and path—is stated clearly, and the schema fills in parameter-level details. However, the description does not clarify which input parameter to use among several seemingly unrelated fields, nor does it describe output format or edge cases. For a tool without an output schema or annotations, this leaves some ambiguity.

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

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

The input schema already provides descriptions for all eight parameters, so schema coverage is high. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond implying that a URL is normalized, leaving the agent to map that to the `url` parameter without additional clarification.

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 operation: return origin, host, and path for a URL, and drop query and fragment. This clearly communicates the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling URL-shape tools such as domain-shape or figma-url-shape.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to choose normalize-url over alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description implies a URL-normalization use case but leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate relative to 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 discloses that no browser is launched, but it does not state whether the tool makes a network request, whether it is read-only, what it returns, or what side effects (if any) occur. The phrase 'can be opened' does not clarify the 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 concise — two sentences, no filler — and front-loads the purpose before the key negative trait. It earns every word, though it is short enough to raise questions about completeness.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain which parameter is the subject of the URL check, what the return value is, or how to distinguish this from browser-url-ok and fetch-status.

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 even without parameter guidance in the description. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, and the schema's URL parameter says 'normalize or cite' rather than 'check,' but the high coverage prevents a lower score.

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 concrete action — 'Check whether a URL can be opened' — with a resource (URL) and adds the boundary 'No browser is launched,' which distinguishes it from the related sibling browser-url-ok. It stops short of a 5 because it does not define what 'opened' means (syntax validation vs network reachability) and does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 only hint is the negative statement 'No browser is launched,' which weakly suggests it is not for browser-level checks, but it never says when browser-url-ok or fetch-status should be used instead.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the query is discarded, which is a meaningful data-retention behavior, but it provides no information about return values, side effects beyond discarding, or whether the listed schema parameters are actually used.

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 no filler. The operation is stated first and the behavioral note second, making it appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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

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

There is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not state what is returned, which parameter represents the search query, or how the input is expected to be provided. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly from the given information 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?

All seven schema parameters have descriptions, but none of them corresponds to a 'search query,' and the tool description does not map its stated input to any schema field. Even with 100% schema description coverage, the descriptions appear unrelated to the tool's purpose, leaving an agent unable to determine which parameter should contain the query.

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, counting characters in a search query, and adds the useful detail that the query is discarded. It is clear about the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools by name.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of exclusions, and no conditions that would select this tool over a sibling. The only implied usage is 'when you need to count characters in a query,' which is not reinforced with any concrete scenario.

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 carries the full burden; it only says 'short catalog', which hints at a lightweight read-only reference but says nothing about output, side effects, or interaction with the many input parameters. This is minimal disclosure, not meaningful 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 very short and has no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with seven distinct parameters and many siblings. Being brief is not the same as being appropriately sized.

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

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

With no output schema, no annotations, and a seven-parameter input schema whose parameters are not connected to the stated purpose, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what inputs to provide or what response 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?

The tool description adds no parameter information, but every parameter in the input schema has its own description, so schema coverage is high. With the schema carrying the parameter semantics, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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

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

The description identifies the resource (HTTP status codes) and scope (common codes), so it is not a tautology. However, it is a noun phrase without a clear verb or return statement, and the input schema's many unrelated parameters make it unclear what an agent should actually do with the tool.

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 status-catalog versus siblings like fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The only implied context is 'if you need common HTTP status codes', but no exclusions or alternative mentions are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether all input parameters are ignored or what the returned template actually contains, leaving some 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 very short and front-loads the main purpose. 'Prompt discarded' is terse but earns its place as a key behavioral note. It could be slightly clearer, but it avoids unnecessary 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 that returns a simple static template, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. Missing context includes what the three steps are and whether any input affects the output, though 'Prompt discarded' implies the output is static.

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

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

The input schema already provides per-parameter descriptions, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. Since schema coverage is effectively high, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not improve or detract from the schema's clarity.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('Return a three-step thinking template') and a specific resource, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that perform shape checks or fetch data. It does not fully explain what the template contains, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The only hint is that the prompt is discarded, which is a behavioral warning rather than 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'current time', which implies a read-only lookup, but it does not disclose output format, errors, timezone validation behavior, or any side effects. This is minimal but not actively misleading.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the output. However, the brevity hides a severe parameter mismatch and provides no actionable structure for invoking the tool.

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

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

Given seven unrelated input parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is completely inadequate. The description fails to explain how to specify the named timezone, what the response looks like, or how this tool relates to utc-time and iana-zones.

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's seven parameters all have descriptions, but none of them corresponds to an IANA timezone; they reference git refs, URLs, city weather hints, RSS feeds, hosts, JSON validation, and file paths. The description adds a concept that is entirely disconnected from the available parameters, so an agent cannot determine which argument to provide.

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

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

The description says the tool returns the current time for a named IANA timezone, which names a resource but lacks a clear verb. More importantly, the input schema contains no timezone parameter, so the stated purpose does not connect to any actual argument the agent could pass.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the sibling tools utc-time or iana-zones. The description only implies that a named IANA timezone is relevant, but it never states 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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the output. It does not clarify that the listed parameters appear to be discarded/ignored, that the call has no side effects, or why a UTC-time tool accepts parameters like 'url', 'json', and 'path'.

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 and front-loaded: 'Current UTC timestamp.' clearly states the core purpose in five words. It is not verbose, though it is perhaps too terse to cover the odd parameter set.

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

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

Given nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to be fully actionable. It does not explain the role of the parameters, the return format, or how this tool relates to the adjacent 'timezone' and 'iana-zones' tools.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 that this tool returns the current UTC timestamp, which is a specific, unambiguous resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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

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

The description implies the tool is for getting the current UTC time, but it provides no guidance about when to use it versus the 'timezone' or 'iana-zones' siblings. It also does not mention whether any of the nine input parameters are relevant to invoking it.

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

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

The statement 'The body is discarded' provides a useful behavioral disclosure: the input is not persisted and the operation appears read-only. With no annotations and no output schema, however, the description does not disclose what the tool returns for valid versus invalid JSON or how errors are reported.

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 tight sentences: the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and a single meaningful behavioral note follows in the second. There is no filler or repetition.

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

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and seven loosely related parameters, this definition is incomplete for invoking the tool confidently. An agent still does not know the return contract, error behavior, or which parameter is required, and the sibling-list context is not leveraged.

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 seven parameters, giving high schema_description_coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter meaning and leaves ambiguity about whether 'the body' maps to the 'json' parameter, but the schema's 'json' description does identify it as the JSON text to validate.

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 and object: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This communicates that the tool is a JSON syntax validator, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling validation/shape tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

The description implies the tool should be used when JSON validity needs to be checked. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, which sibling tool is a better alternative, or what prerequisites apply.

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 behavioral burden, but it only mentions the API source and the returned temperature. It does not disclose external network dependency, that only city is relevant, likely failure modes, or whether any parameters are ignored.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and data source with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple lookup tool.

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

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

Given the noisy seven-parameter schema and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too thin to be fully actionable. An agent still cannot tell which parameters are actually relevant, what response shape to expect, or what limitations apply to the Open-Meteo call.

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 input parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3; the description's mention of 'Open-Meteo' and 'city' adds some context beyond the schema. However, the schema includes six clearly unrelated parameters, and the description does not clarify that they should be ignored for this tool.

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

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

The description names a specific resource (city current temperature) and a specific source (Open-Meteo), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but among the siblings it is the only temperature-lookup tool, so ambiguity is low.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use weather-hint instead of another hint tool, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer a simple city-temperature lookup, but the description gives no help with alternative selection or boundary conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key non-obvious behavior: the response body is discarded. However, it does not mention redirect handling, error behavior, rate limits, or output format, so transparency is only partial.

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

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core result and followed by the important caveat. No filler or redundant rephrasing.

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

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

The tool exposes 9 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, so a two-sentence description is insufficient. It omits which parameters actually trigger the fetch, what the result object looks like, and how this relates to the many URL/status sibling tools.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds only the 'public URL' scope and does not help clarify which of the 9 optional parameters is relevant or why many unrelated parameters exist.

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 reports HTTP status and content type for a public URL and that the body is discarded. This gives a concrete outcome and resource, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools 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?

'Public URL' and 'Body discarded' imply it is for lightweight status/content-type checks rather than retrieving content, but no alternative tools or explicit when/when-not conditions are named. With siblings like fetch-status and browser-url-ok present, this is a missed routing opportunity.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says the title is discarded, but the parameters have unrelated notes like 'no disk access' and 'discarded after the length check'. It does not clarify whether a network request is made, how existence is determined, or what side effects occur.

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

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

The description is brief and structurally simple, but the brevity creates confusion rather than clarity. The mismatch between the one-line purpose and the nine unrelated parameter descriptions means the concise structure does more harm than good.

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

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

There is no output schema, no example, and no explanation of the return value or behavior. Given the complex and contradictory input schema, the description lacks essential context about how the tool relates to Wikipedia title checking and what an agent should 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?

Although the schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, they are semantically disconnected from the stated purpose. For example, 'ref' is described as a Git ref name and 'city' as a weather hint, yet the tool is supposed to check a Wikipedia title. No parameter corresponds to the title, making the parameter semantics misleading and unusable.

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: checking whether a Wikipedia title exists. However, the actual input schema contains nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with descriptions unrelated to Wikipedia titles, and no parameter for the title itself. This mismatch severely undermines the clarity of what the tool actually does.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The conflicting parameter descriptions make it even less clear when this tool should be invoked.

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