Pacific/Guam clock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that task text is discarded, which is a behavioral trait, but it does not mention whether the tool makes network calls, requires authentication, or is read-only. It also doesn't specify how the 9 optional parameters affect behavior beyond being discarded after checks. This is a moderate disclosure, but incomplete for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the discard note placed after. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and output. It is appropriately concise without sacrificing necessary 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does specify the return artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). However, with 9 optional parameters and no required ones, it is unclear how the parameters are used to customize the result or whether calling with no parameters is meaningful. The description does not explain the interplay between inputs and outputs, leaving an agent to guess which parameter to supply for a given need. This is a notable 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%, and each parameter already has a description including what is discarded. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters beyond stating that task text is discarded. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it. It neither contradicts nor adds 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 the tool's purpose: to find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid) and return specific artifacts (CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops). This distinguishes it from the many sibling utilities like 'citation' or 'weather-hint' by naming a unique resource and output. It is not a tautology and gives a concrete verb ('Find') and object ('gateway').

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 when to use it: when you need gateway-related setup or remote MCP hops. It also warns that task text is discarded, which is a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions. Given the clear context, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 one behavioral trait: 'No browser is launched.' However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, whether a network request is made, what happens to the URL, and what the return value is. This single statement is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to convey essential information about the 9 parameters and the tool's behavior. No structure or front-loading of key constraints.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of most parameters, the return value, side effects, or how it relates to sibling tools. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the given 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 has 100% coverage, but the schema parameter descriptions are themselves vague and seemingly unrelated to URL checking (city, json, path, zone, query). The tool description adds nothing about how these parameters map to the tool's purpose. An agent would have no idea why 'city' or 'json' is relevant to checking a 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 and resource: 'Check whether a URL can be opened.' This is clear enough, but it does not differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, which might also involve URL checks. The phrase 'No browser is launched' hints at a lightweight check, but the overall purpose lacks contrast with similar 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 alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would select this over playwright-url-ok or fetch-status. The description gives no usage context whatsoever.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Expression discarded,' which is cryptic and gives no insight into side effects, output, or what happens to the other inputs. It does not explain why the expression is discarded or what the tool actually does.

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 text is brief and front-loaded, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. The two sentences provide minimal information and do not earn their place; they are more confusing than helpful.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It leaves the agent without any understanding of what inputs are relevant, what the tool returns, or when it should be used. This is wholly inadequate for effective selection and 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 each parameter is documented, but the description adds no value beyond that. It does not connect any parameter to the stated 'arithmetic' purpose, and several parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) seem unrelated. The description fails to clarify how these inputs are used.

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 and resource ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic') but then immediately contradicts it with 'Expression discarded.' It gives no indication of what the tool actually does with the 9 unrelated parameters, nor what result is produced. The purpose is ambiguous and does not distinguish it from siblings like 'validate-json' or 'domain-shape'.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. No mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is too vague to help an agent decide to invoke 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that page content is not stored, which is useful, but it does not mention whether the tool makes network requests, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what side effects occur. The fate of the many non-URL parameters is completely unexplained, leaving major behavioral unknowns.

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 the core action front-loaded. It wastes no words. However, it is too brief to cover the tool's complexity, but for pure conciseness it scores well.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the role of most parameters, the return format (beyond listing three fields), error behavior, or any edge cases. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with all 9 parameters described. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, and it does not clarify which parameters are relevant to the stated purpose or how they relate to the URL return. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds nothing beyond that.

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 core action: return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. However, it does not differentiate this from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, and the 9-parameter schema includes many fields unrelated to that core (city, feed, json, zone, etc.), creating ambiguity about what the tool actually does. The 'Page content is not stored' note adds a bit of scope, but the purpose remains muddled by the parameter mismatch.

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url. An agent has no way to know if this is the right choice for a given task.

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 itself. It only adds a privacy note ('No identifiers are retained') and implies no disk access in the path parameter, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a tool that could be invoked with multiple types of 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 short sentence plus a privacy clause. It is efficient with no wasted words. However, the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness – it is short but not informative enough, so the structure is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 tool accepts 9 optional parameters covering diverse domains (URLs, file paths, JSON, timezones, queries) yet has no output schema and no explanation of the classification result. An agent cannot infer what the tool returns or how to interpret the classification. The description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% – every parameter has an individual description, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the description does not introduce confusion, but it also provides no additional context about how parameters are used together.

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 generic verb ('show') and a resource ('how this request is classified'), but 'classified' is vague – no categories, output format, or intended use are specified. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or file-path-ok, which clearly check specific resource types. This is more than a tautology but falls short of a clear purpose.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling checkers. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies a classification function but never states when an agent should prefer this over a more specific 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it does not include WHOIS/ownership data, but gives no information about return format, error behavior, or what 'splitting into labels' actually produces. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation 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 sentence and technically concise, but it omits crucial operational details. It is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, and the front-loaded statement about not using WHOIS is less important than explaining how to invoke 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine which parameter to use, what result to expect, or how this differs from similar shape tools. This is a serious gap for a tool with 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?

The schema covers all parameters, but the description adds no clarification on which parameter to use. For example, 'host' is described as 'Public hostname' in the schema, yet the description doesn't confirm that this is the intended input. The description provides zero added value beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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

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

The description states a specific verb (split) and resource (hostname) and clarifies that it excludes WHOIS/ownership data. However, it does not indicate which of the 9 parameters represents the hostname, leaving some ambiguity about the actual 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings like figma-url-shape or github-repo-shape, nor does it explain which parameter to pass for the hostname. The schema's many unrelated parameters (city, json, path, query) make the intended usage unclear.

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 the HTTP method (HEAD) and that only status is returned, which is meaningful behavioral context in the absence of annotations. However, it does not explain behavior for the non-URL parameters, such as whether validation is local or remote, or what counts as a status result for JSON, timezone, or path inputs. The 'discarded after the check' language in the schema helps, but the description alone is only partly transparent.

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

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient for the URL use case, but it under-specifies a tool whose schema has nine parameters. The brevity sacrifices completeness, 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and nine optional parameters, the description is too thin to give an agent a complete picture. It covers only the URL mode and does not explain the purpose of the other parameters or how they map to sibling tools. An agent would be uncertain whether to use fetch-status or a more specific sibling like validate-json or timezone.

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 though the description adds no parameter-level detail. The description does not explain how the url parameter relates to the others or that only one of the nine parameters should probably be provided. The schema descriptions themselves are rich, so the description's silence is acceptable but not additive.

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 and resource: HEAD a public URL and return status only. However, the input schema exposes eight unrelated parameter types (city, json, path, zone, query, etc.), so the description is misleading about the tool's actual scope. It does not clearly convey that the tool appears to support a wide variety of status checks beyond URL HEAD 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 for when to use this tool versus the many siblings such as web-fetch, normalize-url, validate-json, or browser-url-ok. The description does not mention that the other parameters exist, nor does it explain how an agent should decide which parameter to pass. The schema's parameter descriptions hint at use cases, but the description itself offers no selection 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. 'Parse a Figma file URL' implies an action, and 'Path discarded' hints at behavior, but there is no disclosure of return format, error handling, or side effects. It is unclear whether the tool returns a boolean, a normalized URL, or something else. This is minimal and leaves critical operational details to inference.

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

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

Two sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It earns points for efficiency but loses some for omitting necessary context.

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

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

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the result, or what 'discarded' means. The confusing multi-parameter schema compounds the gap, leaving an agent without enough information to call the tool correctly and confidently.

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 parameter guidance. More critically, the schema lists nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) that have nothing to do with Figma URLs. The description fails to clarify that only 'url' is relevant, leaving an agent unsure which parameters to supply. This confusion outweighs the baseline benefit.

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 ('Figma file URL'), which distinguishes it from generic URL tools like normalize-url and browser-url-ok. However, 'Path discarded' is ambiguous—does it mean the path is ignored during validation or stripped from output? It's clear enough that the tool handles Figma URLs, but the exact purpose (validation vs extraction) is under-specified.

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 siblings. The description does not mention conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. Given the many shape-checker siblings (domain-shape, file-path-ok, github-repo-shape), an agent would have to infer that this tool is for Figma URLs from the name alone, with no explicit routing help.

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 does disclose 'No disk access,' which is a useful safety trait, but it does not explain what 'looks safe' means, what happens to the other parameters, what the return value looks like, or any side effects. For a tool that appears to validate multiple inputs, this is insufficient transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and a key safety trait. However, given the complexity of the schema (9 parameters), the brevity borders on under-specification, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one. It earns a 4 for efficiency.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the return format, which parameter is the primary input, how the unrelated parameters are handled, or any limitations. An agent would have almost no understanding of how to invoke this tool correctly beyond reading the parameter names.

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 documented. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. However, the description's focus on 'path' while the schema includes many unrelated parameters suggests a disconnect that the schema alone does not resolve.

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

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

The description states a clear verb+resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' However, the schema includes 9 parameters, many of which (e.g., 'ref', 'city', 'json') appear unrelated to path checking, creating confusion about the tool's actual scope. It also does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'browser-url-ok' or 'domain-shape', which might also check safety of URLs or paths. The purpose is present but muddied.

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. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without context, leaving the agent to infer applicability 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 burden. It mentions an external service (Open-Meteo) but does not disclose that the tool may perform multiple unrelated checks (as implied by parameter descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check') or that it makes network calls. The description's narrow claim about lat/long conflicts with the broad parameter set, making actual behavior 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 a single sentence and technically concise, but it is so underspecified that it misleads. Conciseness without content is not a virtue; the sentence omits all operational detail and does not front-load the key usage information. The structure offers no benefit.

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 severely incomplete. It does not specify which parameter identifies the place, what the output format is, whether it is synchronous, or any side effects. The tool's complexity demands far more explanation than a single high-level sentence.

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% and each parameter has a description, the tool description adds no value in mapping parameters to the stated purpose. The schema descriptions themselves are more informative about behavior (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') but do not align with the 'place' concept, so the agent cannot infer which parameter to use for geocoding. The description fails to synthesize the schema into a usable mental model.

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 outcome (latitude/longitude for a place via Open-Meteo) but fails to explain how the place is specified, especially given the nine parameters that include ref, url, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query—none of which clearly map to a place name. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like weather-hint or timezone, which likely also involve place or coordinate data.

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, nor which parameter to supply for the 'place' input. The description is silent on context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis to choose this tool over its siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the parsing action but does not disclose that the tool accepts and discards other parameters (as shown in the schema), nor does it mention any validation, error behavior, or side effects. This is a significant gap 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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It is concise and to the point, though it may be too sparse given 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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema. It does not explain how the other parameters are used, what the return value looks like, or how the tool integrates with the broader workflow. An agent would struggle to call it correctly without opening the schema and inferring behavior.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like normalize-url or figma-url-shape, which serve different parsing or validation 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. It does not mention exclusions or context, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes 'Titles discarded,' which hints at some input ignoring but does not explain that all parameters appear to be discarded or irrelevant. There is no mention of side effects, prerequisites, or what the returned count represents.

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), which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It does not provide the necessary context to understand the tool's behavior or parameter relevance, so the brevity works against it.

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 provides almost no operational detail. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters are used, or why they exist. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool with confidence, making the description inadequate for the complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'Titles discarded' which applies to the feed parameter but not the others. It fails to clarify how the parameters relate to the tool's purpose, but the schema itself already documents each parameter.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Count current Hacker News front-page stories'), which is clear on the surface. However, it is misleading because the input schema contains nine unrelated parameters (URL, city, file path, timezone, etc.) that have no obvious connection to counting HN stories. The description does not reconcile this mismatch, so an agent would be confused about 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., domain-shape, search-query-len, weather-hint). The description does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision framework.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states nothing about side effects, return values, or whether parameters are used or ignored. The description is entirely silent on what happens when the tool is invoked.

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

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

The description is only one sentence, which is extremely concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being useless. It lacks the structure needed to convey any actionable information. The brevity is not a virtue here because the content is insufficient.

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 and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, the meaning of the parameters in context, or what the agent should expect in return. An agent would have no basis to decide whether or how to call this tool.

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

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

The schema documents each of the 9 parameters with descriptions, but the tool description does not connect any of them to the stated purpose. Parameters like 'ref' and 'json' appear unrelated to timezone names, creating confusion. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to indicate which parameters are relevant or how they influence the output.

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

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

The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase with no verb indicating what the tool does. It could be a static list, a validation helper, or a converter, but the purpose is ambiguous. The sibling tools like 'timezone' and 'utc-time' suggest time-related operations, but this description does not differentiate it from them.

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 timezone-related siblings. It does not specify whether it is for listing valid zones, filtering, or something else. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without any 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and return type but omits details like error handling when robots.txt is unavailable, any side effects, network requirements, or authentication needs. The behavior is entirely undisclosed beyond the basic intent.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but not effectively so. It front-loads the purpose but lacks the necessary details about parameter usage and behavior. The brevity works against clarity, making it under-specified rather than efficiently 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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must compensate with thorough context. It does not explain what 'group counts' refers to, how the parameters are used, or what a successful response looks like. The description is far too sparse for an agent to call this 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 schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, but these descriptions are generic and unrelated to the tool's stated purpose. For instance, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', not as the robots.txt source. The tool description does not connect any parameter to the robots.txt fetch, leaving an agent unable to infer which input to supply. This actively misleads rather than adds value.

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

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

The description states a clear purpose: fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like web-fetch or fetch-status by focusing on robots.txt specifically. However, it fails to clarify how the input parameters map to this purpose; the schema contains generic parameters like 'url' and 'host' with no explicit indication which one designates the robots.txt location, creating 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web-fetch, fetch-status, or browser-url-ok. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine the appropriate scenario for choosing this tool over others.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral hint is 'Key discarded,' which implies the input is not stored or persisted, but it does not state the return value (e.g., a boolean, a normalized key, or an error), whether any side effects occur, or whether network access is involved. For a validation tool, this is severely incomplete.

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 (two sentences) but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It fails to convey essential information about the tool's operation or parameters. While brevity is generally positive, here it sacrifices clarity and completeness, so it does not earn a high conciseness 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the purpose clearly, does not identify which parameter is the Jira key, does not describe the output or behavior, and does not relate to sibling tools. An agent cannot reliably decide to use this tool or know how to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with each parameter having a terse description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'), so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description references a 'Jira issue key' while none of the schema parameters are labeled as such, and the descriptions do not clarify which field to use for the key. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and actually creates ambiguity about which parameter is relevant. Thus the score drops to 2.

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 ('check') and resource ('Jira issue key shape'), but it is vague about what 'shape' means (format validation?) and, critically, does not indicate which of the nine schema parameters holds the Jira key. None of the parameter names or schema descriptions mention 'Jira' or 'key', so the agent cannot map the description to the input. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape beyond the noun 'Jira'.

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 shape-checking tools (domain-shape, figma-url-shape, github-repo-shape, etc.). No context is given about which input types are appropriate or what distinguishes a Jira key from other identifiers. The description provides no usage conditions 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?

The description mentions 'Body discarded,' which is a behavioral trait. However, annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that the tool handles multiple input types (as implied by parameters like city, zone, query) or what happens for each type. The description is misleading because it focuses solely on HTTP status while the schema indicates broader functionality.

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

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

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, which is good for conciseness. However, it is under-specified and lacks necessary detail, making it too sparse to be useful. It earns a middle score because it is not verbose, but it sacrifices clarity 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is critically incomplete. It explains only one use case and does not address the other parameters, return values, or error scenarios. An agent would have no idea how to use the other parameters or what results 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 schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3, but the description fails to connect the parameters to the tool's purpose. It describes only URL-related behavior, yet the parameters include unrelated fields (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query). The description contradicts the parameter list and provides no additional meaning; it actually confuses parameter usage.

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, which is a specific action and resource. However, the parameter schema includes unrelated fields like city, zone, query, and json, suggesting the tool actually performs multiple types of checks. The description does not align with the parameter list and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like fetch-status or web-fetch, leaving the true purpose ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status, web-fetch, or normalize-url. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. The description is a single sentence with no usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Values discarded,' which is minimal. It does not clarify whether the tool reads from URLs, files, or strings, what side effects exist, or what the return value is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is severely under-disclosed.

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

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

The description is only two sentences, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It omits crucial details about how to invoke the tool and what to expect, so brevity does not contribute to clarity.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the extra parameters, the expected output format, or any operational details. An agent cannot confidently determine how to call this tool correctly from the description alone.

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

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

While schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described, the tool description adds no meaning beyond that. It fails to explain how the parameters map to the 'count keys' operation, particularly which parameter holds the JSON object. The parameter descriptions themselves mention 'discarded after the check,' which hints at a validation workflow, but the tool description does not connect this to the counting action.

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 ('Count keys in a JSON object') and resource, but it does not align with the 9-parameter schema. Only the 'json' parameter plausibly relates to a JSON object, while the other parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, path, zone, query) are unexplained and seem unrelated, creating ambiguity about what the tool actually operates on.

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 siblings (e.g., validate-json, domain-shape, normalize-url). No context is given for which scenario calls for counting keys, nor are any exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is a behavioral trait. However, it fails to disclose that most parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query) are discarded after shape checks, that only the 'url' parameter is actually used, or how the output is structured (no output schema). This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with 9 parameters, most of which are effectively no-ops.

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

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

The description is only one sentence, which is appropriately short. However, it is under-specified rather than concise: it omits essential context about parameter usage, output format, and edge cases. The sentence is well-structured but lacks the detail needed for correct invocation, so it does not earn a higher score for conciseness.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain why so many parameters exist, that most are discarded, or that the tool primarily normalizes a single URL. There is no mention of error behavior, expected URL format (beyond the schema's 'HTTPS'), or what happens if multiple URL-like params are supplied. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly from the description alone.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% because every parameter has a description, but those descriptions mostly state that values are 'discarded after the shape check' or similar. The tool description adds no value about parameters: it does not clarify that 'url' is the only meaningful input, nor does it explain the relationship between the many unrelated parameters. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description's silence leaves an agent uncertain 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), which is clear and informative. It also specifies that query and fragment are dropped, adding useful detail. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, which also operate on URLs, and the presence of 9 unrelated parameters creates ambiguity about which input drives the 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be preferred. The only implicit hint is that query/fragment are dropped, but that is not framed as a selection criterion. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool 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 carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that no browser is launched, but does not clarify what 'opened' means (e.g., HTTP request, DNS check, reachability), whether network calls are made, or any side effects. It also omits that many parameters are 'discarded after the shape check,' a detail only present in the schema descriptions.

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 or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action, making it easy to scan. However, the brevity is excessive for a tool with 9 parameters and many siblings, omitting critical context. Still, from a pure conciseness standpoint, it is 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a complex input schema of 9 parameters, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, success/failure indicators, how different input types are handled, or any error conditions. An agent cannot reliably decide to use this tool based on the description alone, especially given the numerous sibling tools.

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

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

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, each with a clear explanation of purpose and side effects (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). Since the schema fully documents parameters, the description does not need to add more. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning but the schema compensates.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('check whether a URL can be opened') and differentiates from a sibling by noting 'no browser is launched.' However, it fails to mention that the tool accepts many unrelated input types (city, json, path, zone, query, etc.), making the actual scope ambiguous. An agent might misuse it for non-URL checks based on the narrow wording.

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 only guidance is the negative statement 'No browser is launched,' which hints at not using it when browser interaction is required but provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use.' It does not mention alternatives like browser-url-ok, validate-json, geo-hint, or other siblings that handle specific input types, leaving the agent to infer usage 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?

The description discloses that the query is discarded, a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose the fate of the other 8 parameters, nor does it mention side effects or read-only nature. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is insufficient.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and a key behavioral note. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary context, making it less helpful than it could be.

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 does not explain what the tool returns (presumably a character count), why the other parameters exist, or any constraints. An agent cannot determine the full behavior from this description.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming the query is discarded. It does not clarify the role of the other parameters or how they relate to the tool's purpose, 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 clearly states the verb and resource: counting characters in a search query. However, it does not differentiate from sibling count tools (e.g., memory-key-count, hn-front-count) and the presence of 9 parameters suggests additional functionality not mentioned.

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 context, prerequisites, or conditions for use.

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 fails to mention side effects (e.g., network calls, disk access), whether inputs are discarded, or what the tool returns. The parameter descriptions in the schema note 'discarded after...' but the tool description itself gives no behavioral information.

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, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential operational details and fails to front-load any actionable information. A 1-2 word description could be considered concise, but here the brevity is a symptom of incompleteness, not efficiency.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining what the tool does, how to call it, and what it returns. It does none of this. The tool appears to be a status/validation check, but the description's mention of a 'catalog' leaves the agent guessing about the tool's actual function and return value.

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 schema already provides clear per-parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'), so the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning. It neither clarifies how parameters interact nor explains the role of the catalog relative to the inputs.

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 is a noun phrase ('Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') rather than a verb+resource statement. It doesn't say what the tool does with its 9 optional parameters, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or the many shape-check tools. The varied parameters (url, city, json, path, etc.) with 'discarded after...' hints suggest a generic validation/status tool, but the description never states that.

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 use cases, exclusions, or preferred contexts. An agent has no idea whether to call this or fetch-status, domain-shape, or other 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it returns a template and that the prompt is discarded, which implies inputs may be ignored. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or how it handles invalid inputs. The statement 'Prompt discarded' is a useful behavioral hint but incomplete.

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 front-loads the main action ('Return a three-step thinking template') and adds a note about the prompt. While minimal, it is efficient and avoids redundancy.

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 inadequate. It does not explain what the three-step template looks like, how (if at all) the parameters influence the output, or why the prompt is discarded. An agent would be uncertain about the tool's behavior and expected return value, especially with no annotation or output schema to provide 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no information about how parameters relate to the returned template or whether they are actually used. Since the schema carries the parameter documentation, the description does not need to repeat it, but it also does not add any value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Return') and a specific resource ('a three-step thinking template'), which is clear. However, 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous — it could mean the input is ignored, but the schema has 9 parameters, so the purpose is not fully clarified. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, though the unique template output distinguishes it from the listed utility 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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or when it should be preferred over sibling tools. The description merely states what it does without contextualizing its 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output ('current time') without revealing that only the 'zone' parameter is used and all other schema parameters are ignored, nor does it mention error handling, network access, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with nine parameters where most are explicitly marked as 'discarded' in the schema but not in the description.

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 filler, which is efficient. However, it is not structured to highlight the most critical information (that only the zone matters) and lacks any layering. It is adequately concise but could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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, but only one (zone) is actually used, and the description does not indicate this. There is no output schema, so the return format is unspecified. Given the complexity of the schema and the potential for misuse, the description is incomplete and could lead an agent to provide irrelevant parameters or misunderstand the tool's scope.

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 parameters are documented, including 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name'. The tool description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, which already explains the relevant parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description neither clarifies nor contradicts the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('current time') and a specific resource ('named IANA timezone'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'utc-time' or 'tz-pacific-guam', which also provide time information, so it lacks explicit distinction.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or situations where a different tool (e.g., utc-time) would be more appropriate. No usage context is given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that it returns the current local time, but does not disclose whether it makes network calls, whether the result is deterministic, or what the output format is. For a simple read-only time tool, this is minimal but arguably sufficient; however, the lack of any mention of side effects, performance, or output structure leaves gaps.

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 states the core function with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. For a simple tool, this is appropriately minimal.

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 does not explain why these parameters exist for a time tool, nor does it mention the return format or how the tool should be invoked. There is no guidance on which parameters to provide or ignore, and the presence of unrelated parameters (e.g., 'url', 'json', 'path') suggests the tool may be a generic utility that only incidentally reports Guam time. The description is grossly incomplete for an agent to use this 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 schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it does not explain how parameters like 'ref', 'url', or 'city' relate to getting the current time. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description need not repeat, but it also does not clarify the role of these seemingly unrelated parameters in the context of a time lookup.

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 ('Current local time') and a specific resource ('Pacific/Guam'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', which likely serve similar purposes. The specificity of the timezone name provides some distinction, but the description could explicitly note that it is Guam-specific.

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 implies it is for Pacific/Guam time, but it does not state when one would choose this over 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses nothing about the tool's behavior. It does not mention that parameters are discarded, that no side effects occur, or what the return value actually is. The parameter descriptions hint at shape checks, but the tool description fails to convey any of this.

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

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

The description is extremely short (four words), which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. There is no structure, front-loading of key constraints, or useful context. Concise but incomplete.

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, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain how the parameters are used, what the tool returns, or when to invoke it. An agent cannot confidently call this tool based on the provided information.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning or relationship to the tool's purpose, but it does not mislead. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema 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 'Current UTC timestamp' states a generic output but does not explain what the tool does with its nine input parameters. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'timezone' or 'tz-pacific-guam' that likely also deal with time. The purpose is vague and not actionable for an agent.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, exclusions, or comparisons are provided. An agent has no way to know if this is the right tool for a time-related request or something else.

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 does disclose the key trait — 'The body is discarded' — which tells the agent the inputs are not used. However, it omits the return behavior (no output schema) and does not explain what happens with zero arguments, which is a meaningful gap given there are no annotations to fall back on.

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 purpose front-loaded and zero filler words. It is efficient and readable. It borders on under-specification, but as a concise statement of purpose it is 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema — a moderately complex surface that the description does not address. It leaves unexplained what the tool returns, how the many unrelated parameters (city, zone, host, feed) relate to JSON validation, and what 'valid' means. For a 9-parameter tool with no structured fallback, this is 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 schema already documents all 9 parameters, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the blanket 'body is discarded' note and does not clarify which parameter is 'the body' (presumably 'json'). It does not compensate or enrich the schema's per-parameter meaning.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a body is valid JSON'), which is clear and not a tautology. It fits the sibling family of shape-check tools (domain-shape, jira-key-shape). However, there is ambiguity: the schema has no 'body' parameter (only 'json'), and with 0 required parameters it is unclear what object is being validated, which slightly undermines the 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many shape-check siblings (domain-shape, jira-key-shape, github-repo-shape, figma-url-shape, wiki-title-ok). It neither names alternatives nor states the conditions that select this tool. An agent must infer its niche from 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only mentions the temperature retrieval but says nothing about how the other eight parameters are handled (e.g., that they are discarded or ignored). The schema descriptions hint at this, but the tool description does not convey the actual behavior, such as side effects or read-only nature.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the core purpose. For a tool with such a narrow focus, this is appropriately terse, though it sacrifices 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 the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. The agent has no idea how to use the non-weather parameters, what the response format is, or when to prefer this over a sibling. 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'city' while ignoring the other parameters, some of which are clearly unrelated to weather (ref, url, json, etc.). It does not clarify why those parameters exist or how they interact with the weather 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 clear verb ('current temperature') and a resource ('a city via Open-Meteo'), so an agent can infer the primary function. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like geo-hint or timezone, which might also serve location-based queries, so it lacks explicit sibling contrast.

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 doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the body is discarded, which is useful, but it does not explain how the tool behaves with non-URL parameters, what happens if multiple parameters are supplied, whether it follows redirects, or the exact format of the returned status and content type. The schema descriptions hint at 'shape check' and 'discarded after' for many parameters, but the tool description does not clarify these behaviors.

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 structurally efficient. However, given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), it is arguably too terse and omits critical information that the conciseness cannot compensate for. It is not overly verbose, but it does not earn a higher score because the brevity undermines 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?

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is a single sentence that only covers the URL-fetching case. It does not explain what the tool does with the other parameter types, how to combine them, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. This is severely inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly with 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 each parameter has a description, but those descriptions are vague and do not explain how they relate to the tool's primary function. The tool description adds no parameter-level context and fails to clarify which parameter (presumably 'url' or 'host') triggers the HTTP fetch. The schema descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check' are ambiguous, and the tool description does not resolve this.

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 fetches a public URL and returns HTTP status and content type, discarding the body. This is a clear verb+resource for the URL case, but the input schema contains nine parameters (city, zone, query, etc.) that have no apparent connection to URL fetching, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual scope. It also does not differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, and does not reference sibling tools. An agent is left to infer whether this is the right tool for a given URL-related task.

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

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

The only behavioral note is 'Title discarded after the call,' which is vague because the tool does not identify which parameter is the title. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or the nature of the check (e.g., network access, caching), leaving significant gaps.

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

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

The description is concise (two short sentences) and has no waste, but it is under-specified. It is not front-loaded with actionable usage information, and the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Conciseness is appropriate, but structure lacks key details.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, which parameters are relevant to the stated purpose, or how the tool behaves. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the given 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, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and actually creates confusion. The schema parameters are generic and unrelated to Wikipedia titles (e.g., 'city' for weather, 'feed' for RSS), and the description does not clarify which parameter to use for the title. The tool fails to compensate for the schema's lack of relevance.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Check whether a Wikipedia title exists') and a clear resource, but it does not map to any of the 9 schema parameters. None of the parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) obviously represent a Wikipedia title, so an agent cannot determine how to supply the title. This ambiguity prevents a fully clear purpose.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., browser-url-ok, domain-shape, normalize-url). There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or alternatives. The one-line description leaves all selection decisions to inference, which is insufficient given the large sibling set.

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