Pacific/Noumea clock

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 says 'Task text discarded' which is ambiguous and does not clarify how inputs are used, what side effects occur, or whether external calls are made. The return structure is also unmentioned, leaving the agent in the dark about what to expect.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence lists return items and a vague caveat. It is concise overall, though the 'Task text discarded' phrase is cryptic and does not earn its place without clarification.

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 incomplete. It does not explain how parameters relate to the task, what the tool actually does with them, or what the returned data looks like. An agent would struggle to understand the tool's full 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, and the mention of 'Task text' does not map to any parameter explicitly. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents parameters adequately; the description adds no additional value here.

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 purpose: finding a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid) and returning setup info. It clearly identifies the resource and the action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling tools, though the function is distinct enough that a capable agent could infer its unique role.

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 any alternative. The description does not mention conditions for use, exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like web-fetch or citation. An agent would have to guess when 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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that no browser is launched, which is useful, and for several parameters it notes that values are 'discarded after the shape check' or similar. However, it does not explain what the tool actually returns, how it handles invalid inputs, or why the URL-focused description coexists with parameters for city, timezone, JSON, etc. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's side effects and output format.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and a key behavioral note. There is no fluff, and it quickly conveys the essential operation. It is appropriately sized for its content, even if that content is 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It only addresses URL checking while ignoring the other parameters entirely, and it provides no information about return values, error handling, or how parameters interact. An agent would be unable to determine how to use this tool for anything beyond a trivial URL validity check, and the presence of unrelated parameters creates confusion rather than clarity.

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 (100% coverage), so each parameter is individually documented. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning to these parameters; it does not explain how they relate to the URL check or why they are present. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not elevate understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a clear purpose: check if a URL can be opened, with the notable caveat that no browser is launched. This distinguishes it from siblings like playwright-url-ok (which likely launches a browser) and fetch-status (which fetches content). However, the input schema contains nine parameters, most unrelated to URLs (city, feed, json, path, zone, query), which suggests the tool actually performs a broader 'shape check' on various input types. The description does not acknowledge this mismatch, so an agent may be misled about the tool's full capabilities.

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. The description does not mention alternatives like playwright-url-ok or fetch-status, nor does it explain the conditions under which this lightweight check is preferred. The only hint is 'No browser is launched,' which implies a non-heavyweight option, but it is not explicit or comparative.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely says 'Expression discarded,' which is cryptic and does not explain what the tool actually does with the inputs (e.g., shape checking) or any side effects. This is misleading and 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 short, which could be seen as concise, but it omits essential information. It lacks structure and fails to front-load key details, making it under-specified rather than elegantly concise.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does with the parameters, what result is returned, or how the 'discarded' inputs are handled. An agent cannot call this tool correctly based on the given 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?

While the schema descriptions are explicit (each param is discarded after a shape check), the tool description claims arithmetic evaluation, which does not map to any of the parameters. The description adds no meaningful explanation of how the parameters relate to the tool's purpose and actively misleads about their 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 a specific verb and resource ('Evaluate a+b style arithmetic'), but it is unclear how this relates to the 9 parameters, none of which represent an arithmetic expression. It also fails to differentiate from sibling validation tools like domain-shape or file-path-ok, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's actual function.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent cannot determine the appropriate invocation scenario.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that page content is not stored, which is a useful privacy note, but it does not disclose that most parameters are discarded after validation, that there is no disk access, or what the tool does with the other eight parameters. The schema descriptions mention 'discarded' for several fields, but the description itself fails to explain the overall behavior for non-URL inputs. This is a significant gap for a tool with such a diverse schema.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is very concise and front-loaded with the main function. However, given the tool's complexity (nine parameters, many seemingly unrelated), this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential information about the tool's scope and behavior, making the short length a liability rather than a strength.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the URL-based outcome. It does not explain what happens with the other parameters, why they exist, or how they relate to the main function. This leaves an agent uncertain about whether to pass them or what to expect. For a tool with this complexity and no structured annotations, the description is clearly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema for the parameters. It only mentions 'url' implicitly through 'a URL,' but does not clarify the role of the other eight parameters, many of which are marked as discarded. This creates confusion about whether they are relevant to the output. The schema provides individual parameter descriptions, but the description does not synthesize them into a coherent semantic 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It is unambiguous about the primary action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, which likely perform similar URL operations. The presence of nine unrelated parameters in the schema further muddies the purpose, but the core function is clear.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The sibling list includes tools like fetch-status, normalize-url, domain-shape, and others that may overlap significantly. The description does not mention any alternatives or specify conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy guarantee but says nothing about side effects, network access, disk access, or whether the operation is read-only. The schema hints at 'discarded' for many parameters, but the description itself does not clarify the tool's overall behavior or any potential risks.

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

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

The description is extremely brief (two short sentences), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It front-loads a vague purpose and adds a privacy note, but omits critical operational details. Every word is not earning its place because the content is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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

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

Given 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what classification means, what the output format is, how parameters interact, or what happens when multiple parameters are provided. An agent cannot call this tool correctly with the information given.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the 9 parameters individually documented (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check', 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'). The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description doesn't detract.

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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague. It does not specify what resource is classified, what kind of classification is produced, or how it differs from the many sibling tools. The verb 'show' is weak and the object 'request' is ambiguous—it could mean the input payload or an HTTP request. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the specificity needed for an agent to know what this 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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 26 siblings. No context about selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions is provided. An agent has no way to know if this is the right tool for a given task, making the description unusable for routing decisions.

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 mentions that WHOIS/ownership data is not retrieved, which is a positive detail, but it fails to disclose what happens with the other parameters (e.g., does it ignore them, validate them, or use them in some way?), nor does it describe the return value or any side effects. The mismatch between the narrow description and the diverse schema further reduces transparency.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and constraint. It is extremely concise with no filler or redundant wording, earning full marks 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 the tool has 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with the majority of the inputs, what the output format is, or how to use it correctly. An agent would have little idea of what results to expect or how to construct a valid call beyond the hostname parameter.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, which normally sets a baseline of 3. However, the tool description does not explain how the parameters relate to the stated purpose of splitting a hostname; most parameters (ref, url, city, feed, json, path, zone, query) seem unrelated, and the description adds no meaning to them. The lack of alignment between the description and the parameter set makes the semantics confusing rather than clarified.

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 (split a hostname into labels) and explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data, which gives a clear core purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape, and the input schema exposes nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) that the description does not account for, creating ambiguity about the actual scope.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many siblings. It does not mention alternative tools, preconditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferable. An agent has to infer that this is for domain splitting only, but the broad schema suggests it might handle other shape checks, leaving 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the HEAD method and status-only return, but it fails to reveal that the tool actually performs diverse shape checks — the schema shows 9 heterogeneous inputs (city, zone, json, query, etc.) many marked 'discarded after the check' — which is behavior far beyond 'HEAD a public URL.' This mismatch is a significant transparency gap.

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

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

At eight words, the description is extremely terse, but for a tool with nine parameters this reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. Critical information about the multi-parameter shape-check behavior and return semantics is omitted to the point of misleading 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?

Given nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 28 siblings, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the return format (no output schema), the purpose of the non-URL parameters, or how it differs from the four-plus URL-checking siblings. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, which normally warrants a baseline 3. However, the description states the tool heads a URL, while only one of the nine parameters (url) relates to that purpose. The other eight parameters (city, zone, json, path, query, etc.) are inconsistent with the stated purpose, and the description does nothing to reconcile this or clarify how they factor into the call.

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 (HEAD), resource (public URL), and return value (status only). It is clear and compact, and the HTTP HEAD verb distinguishes it from content-fetching tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from URL-related siblings like browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, or web-fetch, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many URL-adjacent siblings (browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, web-fetch, normalize-url, inspect-robots). There is no when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as URL reachability. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the terse description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the path is discarded, but does not state what the tool returns, whether it validates the URL format, or what happens with the other eight parameters. The schema descriptions mention 'discarded after' for several, but that is not in the tool description itself, so the agent is left without behavioral expectations.

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 clauses, and front-loads the main verb. However, for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema, this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks structure to guide the agent on how to use the parameters, making it not appropriately sized for the complexity.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (nine parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It only addresses Figma URLs, ignoring the other parameter types, and does not explain return values or side effects. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not even indicate which parameter is the primary input (presumably 'url'). No extra value is added 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 verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL'. However, the input schema includes nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, json, zone, etc.) that have no obvious connection to Figma URLs, creating confusion about the tool's actual scope. It does not distinguish from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, making the purpose less clear than it appears.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. An agent cannot determine if this is the right tool for a given URL without additional 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?

The description discloses 'No disk access', which is a useful safety guarantee. However, it does not explain the tool's behavior for the other 8 parameters, nor its return value or side effects (e.g., whether it discards inputs, returns a boolean). Given no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden but fails to cover the tool's actual multi-parameter behavior.

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

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

The description is a single efficient sentence, front-loading the core action and safety note. No unnecessary words. However, its brevity contributes to the incompleteness, but for what it does say, it is well structured.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to choose among parameters, or whether it validates only one field at a time. The tool's real behavior is largely unexplained, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%—every parameter has a meaningful description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema and does not clarify which parameter to use when. Since the schema already documents each parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description's path-only focus may mislead agents into ignoring the other fields.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Check whether a path looks safe'), but the input schema contains 9 unrelated parameters (url, city, json, zone, query, etc.) that the description does not mention. This creates ambiguity about the tool's actual scope—it appears to be a generic shape-checker but is described and named as a path-specific validator. The mismatch between description and schema undermines clarity.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (browser-url-ok, validate-json, wiki-title-ok, etc.). It does not specify which parameter to pass for different input types or exclude alternatives. An agent has no basis to decide whether to invoke this tool instead of a more specific one.

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 mentions the use of Open-Meteo but fails to disclose that most parameters are discarded after validation, that the call is read-only, or any rate-limit/error behavior. The schema descriptions hint at discards, but the description adds no transparency of its own.

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 at a single sentence, but it lacks structural elements like front-loading key usage constraints. It is not overlong, but it is under-specified, and the brevity does not compensate for missing critical 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 complexity (9 parameters, none required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between the parameters and the output, nor which input to use for a place. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify which parameter corresponds to the 'place' or how the parameters interact. It neither improves nor contradicts the schema, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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

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

The description states it returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, which indicates a clear verb and resource. However, it does not specify which parameter identifies the place among nine optional fields, making the actual purpose ambiguous. It is not explicitly differentiated from siblings like weather-hint, though the output (coordinates) is distinct.

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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which input to supply and when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the parsing action without explaining what happens on invalid input, whether the URL is normalized, or if there are any side effects. The presence of nine parameters in the schema, only one of which (url) seems relevant, is not addressed. The description fails to disclose the tool's actual behavior beyond a minimal parse, leaving the agent uninformed about edge cases or response format.

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 that directly states the core action without fluff. It is concise and easy to scan. However, it is under-specified, lacking any supporting details about parameters or behavior, which reduces its structural effectiveness. It earns a high score for conciseness but is limited by incomplete 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?

The description is severely incomplete for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the role of most parameters, how the URL is extracted, or what the output looks like. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without additional inference. The lack of output schema and minimal description means the agent is left with substantial ambiguity about inputs, outputs, and error conditions.

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 clarifying which parameters are relevant. It implies only the URL is used, but the schema includes unrelated fields like 'city', 'feed', and 'zone' with no explanation of their role. The description does not map parameters to its stated purpose, creating confusion about whether the tool accepts only a URL or uses all nine. This is a significant gap given the parameter ambiguity.

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

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

The description 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL' uses a specific verb (parse), a clear resource (owner and repo), and a precise source (GitHub URL). This distinguishes it from sibling URL-shape tools like figma-url-shape and jira-key-shape, which have different parsing targets. The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions such as 'use this for GitHub URLs' or exclude cases like non-GitHub URLs. Siblings like figma-url-shape are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool counts stories and discards titles, but it does not disclose whether this involves a network request, what the output format is, or any side effects. For a simple counting operation, this might be acceptable, but without annotations, more context is needed.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence. It is front-loaded with the main action, but it lacks any structure or additional details. It is not a tautology, but it is under-specified.

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 highly incomplete given the tool's 9 parameters, lack of output schema, and absence of annotations. It does not explain the output, the role of the parameters, or the context in which this tool is useful. An agent cannot correctly invoke it without additional information.

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

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

The schema lists 9 optional parameters, each with a description, but these descriptions appear generic and unrelated to the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint'). The tool description does not explain how these parameters are used or why they exist. The schema coverage is 100%, but the semantic value is low because the parameters seem irrelevant to counting HN front-page stories.

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: it counts current Hacker News front-page stories. It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like web-fetch or fetch-status, which could also be used to retrieve HN data. The mention of 'Titles discarded' adds a minor detail but doesn't clarify differentiation.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no indication whether to choose this over fetch-status or web-fetch.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, side effects, or how the many parameters are processed. The description gives no insight into the tool's actual behavior, leaving an agent completely in the dark.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence) but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks critical information about the tool's function, parameters, and output. The brevity is not earned because the content is insufficient for an agent to understand or invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the tool's core purpose, how the parameters are used, or what the expected result is. An agent would have no way to know when to call this tool or what to pass. This is far below the minimum viable 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 baseline for this dimension is 3. However, the description adds nothing beyond the schema and, more importantly, does not connect the nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) to the stated purpose of timezone names. The parameters appear unrelated to timezones, and the description does not clarify their role or how they are used, so the value added is minimal.

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' does not state an explicit verb or resource. It reads more like a data hint than a tool description, and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. It is not a tautology but remains vague about what the tool actually does (e.g., lists, returns, checks).

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

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

The phrase 'for clock calls' provides a faint usage context, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools like 'timezone' and 'utc-time' are not mentioned, and no conditions for use are described.

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, but it only mentions the output type. It doesn't explain that most parameters are discarded, that only public URLs are accepted, or that network access occurs. The schema hints at discarding, but the description itself provides no such context.

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

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

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core function. It is maximally concise, though at the expense of completeness.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It omits parameter usage, error behavior, and the fact that most parameters are irrelevant, making correct invocation nearly impossible.

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

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

Schema descriptions are vague ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') and don't connect to the robots.txt purpose. The description doesn't specify which parameter is the target URL, so an agent cannot correctly map the 9 parameters to the task.

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 (fetch public robots.txt) and output (group counts only), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch. It's unambiguous about the tool's primary function.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of conditions, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess based on name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Key discarded' but does not explain the broader behavior of the tool, such as whether it performs network access, whether it validates only the format or also existence, or what happens to the other eight parameters. More critically, the description says 'Check a Jira issue key shape' while the schema parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) do not include an obvious Jira key field, creating an internal inconsistency that obscures the tool's actual behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely short ('Check a Jira issue key shape. Key discarded.'), but this is under-specification rather than concise completeness. It omits essential information about the input parameter for the key and the exact validation behavior. The schema includes many unrelated parameters that the description does not address, so the brevity is not a virtue.

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's complexity (nine parameters, all optional, no output schema, no annotations) and the existence of many sibling shape-check tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to pass the Jira key, what constitutes a valid shape, whether the check is purely syntactic, or how the result is returned. An agent would have to guess the correct usage, which is unacceptable for a tool with this many parameters and no other documentation.

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

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

The schema descriptions for all nine parameters are minimal, mostly stating that the value is 'discarded after the check' or similar. The tool description adds no meaning beyond this. It does not clarify which parameter receives the Jira issue key, nor does it provide examples or format expectations. Although schema coverage is 100%, the descriptions are so generic that they do not help an agent map inputs to the intended purpose.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), but the input schema includes nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) none of which is clearly a Jira issue key. The description does not specify which parameter holds the key, so an agent cannot confidently map the purpose to the schema. This ambiguity distinguishes it poorly from sibling shape-check tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like domain-shape, github-repo-shape, and figma-url-shape exist, but the description does not mention any of them or state the condition that would select jira-key-shape. The intended use case (checking a Jira issue key) is implied only by the name and one-line description.

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

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

The only behavioral detail is 'Body discarded', which hints at a read-only status check. However, with no annotations, the description carries full burden and fails to disclose what happens with the other parameters, what the return format is, or any side effects. It adds minimal context beyond the annotation-less state.

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

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

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. It lacks structure and context, making it too minimal to be effective. While concise, it sacrifices essential information, so it doesn't earn a high 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 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose beyond a vague status check, doesn't specify what each parameter does in context, and omits return value details. The agent cannot confidently invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' for url) and don't align with the 'library docs' theme. The description doesn't clarify which parameter is the primary input or how the optional parameters interact, failing to compensate for the ambiguity.

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

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

The description states 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL' which indicates a URL status check, but the meaning of 'lib-docs' is unclear and the tool name is ambiguous. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, and the many unrelated parameters suggest a broader function that is not explained.

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 such as fetch-status or browser-url-ok. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only mentions that values are discarded, but does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether it is read-only), error handling, or what happens with invalid JSON. The minimal statement adds little beyond the name.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately short for the simplicity of the operation, though it could be slightly 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain the return value (the count), how to pass the JSON, or how to handle multiple inputs. An agent would have to infer too much.

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% coverage, so each parameter is described in the schema itself. The description does not add extra meaning, such as clarifying that the 'json' parameter is the primary input or how other parameters relate. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage, but the description could have helped identify the relevant 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 clear action (count keys) on a specific resource (a JSON object) and notes that values are discarded. It is not a tautology and distinguishes the core operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention which parameter to use (e.g., 'json') or any context that would help an agent decide when to call it. With 9 parameters and 0 required, the lack of usage direction is a significant gap.

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 only discloses that query and fragment are dropped. It says nothing about handling invalid URLs, network access, or the meaning of the other eight schema parameters. The tool appears to discard or ignore many parameters, but this is not stated. A mutation or read safety profile is also absent.

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

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

The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loads the main purpose. However, it is so short that it omits critical context about the wide parameter set, making it under-specified rather than efficiently structured.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description explains only the 'url' behavior. It does not mention what the tool returns besides origin/host/path, how other parameters affect output, or whether they are ignored. This is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly in all cases.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has its own description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how parameters like 'ref', 'city', or 'json' relate to the URL normalization purpose, but the schema descriptions at least label them.

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

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

The description states a specific action (return origin, host, path) on a specific resource (URL), and explicitly notes query/fragment are dropped. It is clear about the core function, but does not distinguish this tool from many URL-related siblings like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, so it misses the top score.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that also deal with URLs or shapes. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent to infer.

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 a negative ('No browser is launched') and omits what 'check' entails—whether it validates URL format, performs a network request, returns a status, or has side effects on the many parameters. This is a major gap.

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

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

The description is extremely short (two sentences) with no redundancy, but the second sentence is a bare negation that could be more informative. It is minimal but lacks substance; the brevity does not earn high marks because it omits critical 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 nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with parameters like 'ref', 'city', or 'query', what the result looks like, or any prerequisites. Agents would be forced to guess or probe.

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 nine parameters are individually documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not elevate it.

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

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

States a clear action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and adds a distinguishing negative constraint ('No browser is launched'), which hints at its non-browser nature. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, so it misses a point for specificity.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool 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 behavior. It states 'Query discarded' but does not clarify that other parameters are ignored, nor does it mention the return value (presumably a count). It lacks a safety profile (read-only, no side effects) and does not explain what happens with the other 8 parameters.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits essential details like the return type and the fact that only the 'query' parameter is used. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise; it could be improved with one more sentence clarifying scope.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify that all parameters except 'query' are irrelevant, nor does it explain the expected output (a character count). An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without additional guessing.

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 already documented. The description adds no extra meaning about which parameter is the 'query' or that only 'query' matters. It does not compensate for the potential ambiguity introduced by having 9 optional parameters.

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

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

The description states a clear verb ('count') and resource ('characters in a search query'), and the tool name reinforces the intent. However, it does not explicitly name the 'query' parameter as the input, leaving slight ambiguity given the schema has 9 parameters. It distinguishes from most siblings by its specific focus on search-query length.

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 like 'memory-key-count' or 'hn-front-count'. No explicit context or exclusions are provided; the agent must infer usage solely from the name and description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Short catalog' and gives no indication of side effects, permissions, discard behavior, or output format. The schema parameter descriptions mention 'discarded after the shape check,' but the description itself adds no behavioral 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 (one short sentence), but it is under-specified and lacks structure. It does not front-load any actionable information and omits critical details about the tool's operation. Brevity without substance is not effective 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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose in relation to its parameters, expected input/output, or any usage scenarios. An agent would have no way to correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. However, the description adds no meaning beyond that, and the parameter descriptions themselves (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') do not connect to the stated purpose of HTTP status codes. The tool's description fails to explain how these parameters relate to its function, leaving the agent to guess.

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 resource ('common HTTP status codes') and a verb ('catalog'), but the input schema contains nine parameters unrelated to HTTP status codes (e.g., 'ref', 'url', 'city'). The purpose is ambiguous and misaligned with the actual parameters, making it unclear what the tool truly does. It is not a tautology, but it fails to convey a coherent, specific function.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any of the 27 siblings (e.g., fetch-status, normalize-url, validate-json). There is no mention of context, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving an agent without any routing information.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Prompt discarded,' which hints the prompt is ignored, but it doesn't disclose any side effects, whether it's read-only, or what happens with the parameters. It's completely opaque about its behavior.

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

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

It is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary information. While brevity is a virtue, it sacrifices essential details about the tool's purpose and usage. It's not well-structured; it's just a fragment.

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 required fields, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does with the parameters, what the template looks like, or how to interpret the output. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on 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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, but the tool description adds nothing about how these parameters affect the output. The schema descriptions themselves are vague (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), and the tool description doesn't explain the connection. Thus the description provides no 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 it returns a three-step thinking template, which is a specific output, but it doesn't clarify what the template is for or how it relates to the nine parameters. It doesn't distinguish from siblings, which appear to be specific utility tools. The mention of 'Prompt discarded' is confusing and doesn't clarify the tool's role.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no idea why to invoke this over, say, calc-eval or normalize-url.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the tool returns the current time, but doesn't disclose output format, timezone database versioning, or any side effects. For a read-only operation, this is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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

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

The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately brief for a simple tool and gets straight to the point.

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, but the description only mentions one (zone). It doesn't clarify that other parameters are irrelevant or discarded, which could confuse an agent. There is no output schema, so the return format is also undisclosed. For a tool with multiple parameters, 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 documents all 9 parameters. The description implies the 'zone' parameter is used but doesn't add any extra meaning. Since the schema already explains each parameter, the description adds marginal value, meeting the baseline of 3.

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

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

The description states a specific verb (get current time) and a clear resource (named IANA timezone). It distinguishes from the sibling utc-time by implying a specific zone, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other time-related tools like iana-zones. It's clear enough for basic understanding.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like utc-time or iana-zones. The description provides no context about when a named timezone is needed or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output and fails to mention that the 9 input parameters are accepted but ignored (per schema descriptions they are 'discarded'). This could mislead an agent into believing parameters affect the result.

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, making it very concise. However, it is under-specified, lacking crucial context about the parameters and usage. It is not appropriately sized 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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the purpose of the parameters or clarify that they are irrelevant to the output, leaving an agent unable to correctly invoke the tool 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?

The schema provides complete descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the schema already conveys their meaning. The tool description adds no parameter-related information, so it does not enhance beyond the schema baseline.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides the current UTC timestamp, which is a specific output. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones' that may also provide time-related information, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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

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

The description discloses that the body is discarded, which is a useful behavioral note. However, there are no annotations to cover other behaviors, and the description says nothing about side effects, permissions, network calls, or the fate of the other parameters (url, city, feed, etc.). The schema implies additional behavior, but the description ignores it.

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

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

The description is extremely brief (one sentence), which is concise, but not appropriately sized for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations. It front-loads the main action but omits essential details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does with the other parameters, what the return value is, or any side effects beyond discarding the body. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the given 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?

The schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, only the generic statement about the body. It does not clarify which parameter is the JSON input, nor does it explain the relevance of the other parameters.

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

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

The description states a clear action (validate JSON) but uses the word 'body' while the schema has a 'json' parameter, creating ambiguity about which input to provide. It does not mention the many other parameters in the schema, so the tool's true scope is unclear. It is distinguishable from siblings but not precisely defined.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or recommended scenarios. The description is a single sentence with zero 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'via Open-Meteo' but does not state that an external API call is made, that it is read-only, or how failures are handled. It also fails to clarify that the other parameters in the schema are ignored, leaving the tool's 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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. However, it omits essential context about parameter usage and behavior, making it under-specified. It is efficient in wording but lacks necessary detail, so it earns a middle 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's full behavior, which parameters are actually used, what the output looks like, or any side effects. The description is far too minimal for the complexity implied by the schema.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The parameter descriptions in the schema are generic and often unrelated to weather (e.g., 'ref' is 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'), and the tool description does not compensate by indicating which parameters are relevant or how they are used. This creates confusion rather than clarity.

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

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

The description states a clear purpose: 'Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo.' It specifies the action (get current temperature), the resource (city), and the data source. It distinguishes from siblings because no other tool is weather-related. However, it doesn't clarify that only the 'city' parameter is used, given the schema includes many unrelated parameters, which slightly reduces clarity.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention that it's specifically for weather queries and not for other purposes. It also doesn't state any exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer the intended use from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the body is discarded, but does not mention redirect handling, timeouts, or the fact that many parameters are irrelevant to the core operation. Minimal behavioral context.

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

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

A single, concise sentence with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 nine parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the various 'discarded' parameters relate to the main purpose, nor describe the output format beyond 'status and content type'. An agent would struggle to know which parameter to supply.

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%, providing the baseline of 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, and does not clarify which of the nine parameters are relevant to the primary 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 clearly states the verb (fetch) and resource (public URL) and specifies the output (HTTP status and content type). It distinguishes from a full body fetch by noting the body is discarded, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or browser-url-ok. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Title discarded after the call,' which is minor. More importantly, the description claims a Wikipedia-title check, but the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') imply a generic validation tool. This misrepresentation means the agent cannot trust 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 description is one sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately brief. It fails to include essential information about how to invoke the tool, making the brevity detrimental rather 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the input format, the expected return value, or how the parameters relate to the stated purpose. An agent has no way 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?

While schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose. None of the parameters is clearly the Wikipedia title, and the notes like 'discarded after the shape check' suggest a different function. The description adds no clarity about which parameter to use for the title check.

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 Wikipedia title exists'), but the input schema does not include a title parameter, and the parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) suggest the tool is actually a generic shape checker. This mismatch undermines the clarity of what the tool does, as an agent cannot determine how to supply the title.

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. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent without any basis for selection.

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