Pacific/Palau clock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses some output ('CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, remote MCP hops') and notes 'Task text discarded', but it does not explain how the 9 input parameters are used, whether any are required, or any side effects. The 'pay-per-call' hint implies cost but is not elaborated. Overall, insufficient behavioral disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. It is efficient and avoids verbosity, but it omits essential context, making it too terse. It earns a 4 for conciseness but loses a point for sacrificing clarity.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with each parameter, what the exact return format is, or when to use it. The tool is complex, and the description leaves too much to inference, making it inadequate for an agent to call 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema; it only mentions 'Task text discarded', which is not a parameter. Since the schema fully documents each parameter, the description adds no extra meaning, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Find') and a resource ('public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid)'), but 'Monid' is unexplained jargon and the overall behavior is ambiguous. It does not differentiate from sibling tools, as it doesn't clarify what makes this distinct from a generic search or discovery tool.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It never mentions any sibling tool or condition for selection. The description only states what it returns, not when it should be invoked, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It only states that no browser is launched, but does not explain what the check actually does (e.g., network request, format validation) or why parameters like city, json, path, zone, and query are present. These extra parameters are unexplained and contradict the single-purpose framing, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

The description is very concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified, leaving essential details unaddressed. It is not bloated, but it is too short to be genuinely helpful, so it earns a mid-range 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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what the output is, what 'can be opened' means, how the parameters affect the check, or when to use it. The presence of unrelated parameters like city and json makes the tool's behavior even more opaque. This is far below the minimum viable completeness for such a complex tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the parameter descriptions are cryptic and disconnected from the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call'), and the description adds no additional meaning. The tool description does not clarify why these parameters exist or how they relate to checking URL openability, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of contextual integration.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and resource ('URL'), and differentiates itself from siblings like web-fetch or playwright-url-ok by noting 'No browser is launched.' However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'can be opened' means (e.g., HTTP status, DNS resolution, URL format), so it is clear but not fully precise.

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. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or why one would choose it over web-fetch, normalize-url, or playwright-url-ok. The only hint is that no browser is launched, but this is not framed as a use-case directive.

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 carries the full burden. The phrase 'Expression discarded' is confusing—there is no expression parameter—and there is no disclosure of side effects, permissions, or what the tool does with the given parameters. The description actively misleads about the tool's 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 (two sentences), but brevity without substance is not conciseness. It omits essential information and is not front-loaded with the tool's actual purpose. It is under-specified rather than 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 completely inadequate. An agent has no idea what the tool does, how the parameters are used, or what result to expect. The description fails to provide any useful context.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description provides zero additional meaning for any parameter. Worse, it mentions 'a+b style arithmetic' while none of the parameters relate to arithmetic, so it actively harms understanding rather than aiding it. The baseline 3 for high coverage is not applicable because the description contradicts the schema's purpose.

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

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

The description claims 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic,' but the input schema contains 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with no arithmetic expression field. The description is misleading and does not reflect what the tool actually does, making it worse than a vague statement.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., domain-shape, normalize-url, fetch-status). The description does not mention any alternative or exclusions, leaving an agent unable to select it correctly.

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 does add the useful trait that 'Page content is not stored,' which implies a privacy-safe operation. However, it does not disclose whether the tool makes network requests, has rate limits, or how it handles errors, leaving critical behavior unspecified.

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

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

The description is two sentences with zero redundancy. The core functionality is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a meaningful behavioral note without extra fluff. Every word earns its place.

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

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

The description only mentions URL handling, but the schema includes nine optional parameters such as city, feed, json, path, zone, and query. The description fails to explain the purpose of these parameters or how they relate to the stated function, making the tool's actual scope unclear. The absence of an output schema also leaves the return format unspecified.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so every parameter is already documented with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is a concrete verb+resource, and it distinguishes the tool from simple URL fetchers by specifying the exact output fields. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, which likely have overlapping purposes.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name alone. This is a significant gap given the large sibling list.

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

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 does state that 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a useful privacy trait, but it omits whether the tool is read-only, makes network calls, modifies anything, or what the response format is. This is minimal disclosure, leaving significant behavioral unknowns.

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

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

The description is very brief (two sentences), but brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency. It lacks necessary details about the tool's output and selection logic, so it is not appropriately sized for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. The front-loaded purpose is vague, and the privacy note is the only substantive content.

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 a non-obvious classification function, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what classification means, what the response will contain, or how the request is processed. The single privacy statement is not enough to guide an agent in using the tool correctly.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter's meaning and disposal behavior (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not contradict the schema and no extra semantics are needed.

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

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

The description states a verb ('Show') and a resource ('this request'), but the object 'classified' is ambiguous. It does not specify what kind of classification, what the output looks like, or how it relates to sibling tools like domain-shape or file-path-ok. This is a vague purpose, not a tautology, but it leaves the agent guessing about 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about which requests are appropriate or which sibling tools might be better suited. The only statement, 'Show how this request is classified,' implies a use case but does not explain selection criteria or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary operation (splitting) and a limitation (no WHOIS/ownership), but does not describe return format, side effects, error behavior, or what happens with the other eight parameters. The mention of 'discarded' in the schema is not echoed here, and the description is too sparse to be transparent.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, it is so brief that it omits essential context about the schema's breadth and any additional behavior. It is not misleading, but it under-specifies rather than being efficiently complete, so it earns an average 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?

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making the description the sole source of context. It fails to explain the purpose of most parameters, the return value, or how the tool behaves in different scenarios. An agent would be completely lost trying to call this tool correctly for anything other than a plain hostname split, and even then the output format is unknown. The description is grossly inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has its own description, which would normally give a baseline of 3. However, the tool description only references 'hostname', implying the 'host' parameter is central, while the schema lists many unrelated parameters. The description adds no meaning about how parameters relate to the stated purpose, and even creates confusion about whether the other parameters are relevant. This degrades the value below the 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 core action: 'Split a hostname into labels' and adds a limitation ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). However, the input schema exposes 9 parameters, most of which (city, feed, json, path, zone, query) have no relation to hostname splitting. This creates ambiguity about the tool's actual scope, so the purpose is not fully 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'without WHOIS or ownership data' as a distinguishing factor, but does not name sibling tools like figma-url-shape or github-repo-shape, nor does it state exclusions beyond that single note. An agent cannot reliably decide between this and similar shape-check tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states that a HEAD request is performed and only status is returned, but omits the behavior for other parameters (e.g., whether JSON validation mutates anything, whether timezone checks involve network calls, or what 'discarded after the check' means operationally). This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with 9 divergent input types.

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 structurally concise, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. The brevity comes at the cost of omitting all non-URL functionality, making it more misleading than efficient.

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

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

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the overall function, the meaning of 'status', the output format, error handling, or how the various parameters relate. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool for any parameter other than possibly 'url'.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context only for the 'url' parameter (HEAD, status-only). It misleads for all other parameters by implying they are irrelevant to the tool's purpose, failing to compensate for the schema's individual descriptions. The 'discarded after the shape check' phrase in the schema is not reinforced or 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 clear action for the 'url' parameter (HEAD request, return status), but the tool has 9 parameters covering distinct checks (JSON, timezone, file path, etc.) that are entirely unmentioned. This makes the stated purpose misleading for the majority of inputs and fails to differentiate from siblings like browser-url-ok 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 given on when to use this tool versus the 26 siblings, nor any conditions for selecting specific parameters. The description implies a narrow URL-only use case, while the schema suggests a general-purpose status/check tool, leaving the 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Path discarded' but does not explain the behavior for the other 8 parameters, nor the return value, side effects, or why a Figma URL parser accepts parameters like 'city' and 'feed'. This is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at one sentence, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified and does not earn its brevity—it omits critical information about the parameter set and expected usage.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the return format, how the URL is parsed, or the role of the majority of parameters. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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

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

The schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, each with a clear one-liner. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify how parameters relate to the stated purpose. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema is sufficient, but the description adds no value.

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

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

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, and the input schema lists 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, etc.) that are not explained, making the tool's actual scope ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, conditions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'No disk access', which is a useful guarantee, but it fails to explain the tool's behavior with respect to its 9 parameters. The description only mentions a path, yet the schema includes many unrelated fields (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query). The tool appears to only act on 'path', but the description does not disclose that the other parameters are ignored or irrelevant, which is misleading. It also does not state what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, status message).

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, consisting of two short sentences, and the core purpose is front-loaded. There is no wasted verbiage. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification; it is efficient but leaves out critical context. Still, for what it states, it is well-structured and 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, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the path concept and does not explain the role of the other 8 parameters, the return value, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably call this tool because it does not know what to expect as output or how to handle the non-path parameters. This is highly incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. However, the tool's description adds no semantic value beyond the schema; it only repeats the path check. More critically, the tool is named 'file-path-ok' but has 9 parameters, and the description does not clarify that only 'path' is relevant or how the others are treated. This creates confusion about parameter roles and reduces the effectiveness of the schema descriptions. The description should have explained the relevance or irrelevance of the extra 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 clearly states the tool checks whether a path looks safe, with a specific verb (check) and resource (path). It distinguishes itself from network or URL tools by explicitly saying 'path' and 'No disk access', which implies a local file path check. However, it does not name or contrast any sibling tools, so it lacks explicit differentiation from similar shape-checking siblings like browser-url-ok or domain-shape.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The only hint is 'No disk access', which implies safety but does not help the agent decide between this and other validation tools like validate-json or domain-shape. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention network calls, error handling, rate limits, side effects, or what happens with invalid input. The schema notes some parameters are discarded, but the description itself is silent on all behavioral aspects.

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, one sentence, and front-loads the core purpose. However, it is arguably too sparse for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, but conciseness itself is not penalized. It lacks structural elements like examples or param hints, but as a single-sentence definition it is efficient.

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

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

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not specify which parameter is relevant, what the output format is, or any constraints. The agent would have to open the schema and infer behavior, which is insufficient for a complex tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not indicate which parameter(s) should be used for geocoding or how they relate. With such a broad schema, the description fails to provide any interpretive value.

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

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

The description states a clear purpose: returning latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo. It uses a specific verb ('Latitude and longitude') and names the service, making the core function unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like weather-hint, which also involves locations, and the broad schema (9 unrelated parameters) muddies what constitutes a 'place'.

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 is a single sentence with no mention of conditions, exclusions, or related tools. Given many siblings (e.g., iana-zones, timezone, weather-hint), the agent has no 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Parse', which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention that many parameters are discarded, that it only uses the url parameter, or what the output format is. The schema hints at discarding behavior, but the description adds no transparency beyond a simple parse.

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

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

The description is a single, short sentence with no waste. It front-loads the core action. However, given the complexity of the schema (9 params), the brevity leaves critical information unstated, so it's not perfectly concise in the sense of being complete yet compact.

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 covers the URL parsing aspect. It doesn't explain why the other parameters exist, what the tool returns, or any prerequisites. With no output schema, the agent has no idea what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with this parameter count.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning to any parameter; it only refers to 'GitHub URL', which likely maps to the 'url' parameter. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description fails to add value beyond that.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'). It distinguishes from sibling shape tools like figma-url-shape and jira-key-shape by specifying GitHub. However, it doesn't mention the other 8 parameters, so the overall purpose is partially obscured by the schema's breadth.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use when you have a GitHub URL and need owner/repo, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or recommend sibling tools for other URL types. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says it counts stories and discards titles. It does not reveal that most input parameters are ignored (as indicated by the schema's 'discarded' notes), whether the tool makes network calls, or if there are any side effects. The description is silent on these, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

The description is exceptionally concise—two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded. However, the brevity borders on under-specification; while it is appropriately sized for a simple tool, the lack of any parameter usage guidance reduces its structural value.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., a numeric count), which parameters are relevant (if any), or how the tool obtains the front-page data. An agent cannot reliably 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%, but the parameter descriptions are all unrelated to the tool's purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint'). The tool description does not clarify which, if any, parameters affect the count. It adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to reconcile the mismatch between the parameters and the tool's function.

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 ('Count') and resource ('current Hacker News front-page stories'), making the core purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like web-fetch or fetch-status by focusing on counting rather than fetching. However, the phrase 'Titles discarded' is ambiguous—does it mean titles are not part of the output or that the tool ignores titles? This adds minor confusion.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With 27 sibling tools, an agent has no basis to decide when this tool is appropriate, especially since the parameters seem unrelated to the stated purpose.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, response format, or how the numerous parameters are consumed. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a use case but does not describe actual behavior.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified rather than effectively front-loaded. It does not earn its place because it provides no actionable information and omits essential details.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's function, how parameters are used, or what the agent can expect in return. This is inadequate for any meaningful call.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds zero meaning about the 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query), and the tool's unclear purpose makes it impossible to infer how they relate. The schema descriptions are the only source of parameter semantics, and the description does not compensate.

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

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

The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls.' is a noun phrase, not a clear verb+resource. It restates the tool name and offers no explicit action (list, validate, convert). It also fails to distinguish from siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time', making the purpose ambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or trade-offs. An agent has no basis to choose this over the many sibling time-related tools.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It says 'fetch a robots.txt' but then mentions 'return group counts only' without explaining how the many other schema parameters are handled (several are marked 'discarded'). The description is misleading because the actual behavior is not clearly disclosed and contradicts the broad parameter set.

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 is under-specified. It lacks necessary detail about parameters, behavior, and output, making it insufficient rather than appropriately concise. The brevity does not add value because it omits 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must provide substantial context to be usable. It fails to explain the actual function, which parameter is relevant, what 'group counts' means, or how the tool interacts with the various schema fields. The description is wholly inadequate for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are generic and not aligned with the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' which does not mention robots.txt. The description itself adds no clarification about which parameter is the primary input, leaving the agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

The description states 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only,' but the input schema contains 9 unrelated parameters (e.g., city, json, zone) with no clear indication of which parameter actually targets the robots.txt. This is confusing and does not clearly distinguish the tool from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch, which also deal with URLs.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection. Given the schema's mix of unrelated parameters, an agent has no basis to decide when to call this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only states 'Key discarded.' It does not mention return values, side effects, or what happens for valid vs invalid keys. The mismatch between the Jira-focused description and the broad parameter set adds ambiguity rather than 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 short (two sentences), which is concise, but it is under-specified. It does not earn conciseness because it omits essential information; it is more a stub than a concise summary.

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

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

This tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no context: no return format, no side effects, no usage examples, and no explanation of how the parameters relate to the check. It is completely inadequate for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% so each parameter is documented in the schema, but the description adds no meaning beyond that. More importantly, the parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, etc.) are not connected to the stated Jira-key purpose, so the description fails to clarify why these parameters exist or how they relate to the 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 verb and resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape') but leaves the meaning of 'shape' undefined and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. The parameter list includes unrelated fields (city, feed, json, path), so the purpose is not clearly scoped.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a Jira key context but does not state when not to use it or mention that other shape-checking tools exist for different key types.

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 body is discarded, but it does not explain that most parameters are ignored, whether network access occurs, or what happens for non-library URLs. The schema descriptions hint at discard behavior, but the tool description itself is silent on these operational details.

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 sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specified to the point of being cryptic, and the single sentence does not earn its place because it omits essential context about the parameter set.

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

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the role of each parameter, the output format, error handling, or how it relates to sibling hint tools. An agent cannot confidently call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond the schema; it only implies the 'url' parameter is used, but the schema already describes that parameter as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' which conflicts slightly with the HTTP status focus. No additional semantic value is provided.

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: 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL.' This is clear enough to distinguish from generic fetch tools, but it fails to explain the presence of 9 parameters, many of which are explicitly discarded. The mismatch between the narrow purpose and the broad schema creates ambiguity about what the tool actually does.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch-status, normalize-url, or browser-url-ok. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that values are discarded, which is a useful trait, but it does not explain the input format, how the JSON is provided, what happens with the other eight parameters, or what the output looks like. It also fails to clarify that the 'json' parameter is the relevant one, and the schema descriptions for other parameters suggest they are all discarded, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no wasted words. It states the core action and a key behavioral note (values discarded) without fluff. The information is front-loaded and easy to parse, making it efficient for an agent to scan.

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 nine parameters, none required, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not specify the input format (e.g., that the JSON should be passed via the 'json' parameter), the expected output (e.g., an integer count), or any edge cases or error conditions. The description leaves too much unspecified for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional context.

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

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

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the tool description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not indicate which of the nine parameters should be used to supply the JSON object, nor does it clarify the role of the other parameters. The description's mention of 'JSON object' does not map explicitly to the 'json' parameter, leaving the agent to guess. The description fails to compensate for the high parameter count and the fact that most are irrelevant to the core operation.

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

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

The description states a specific action: counting keys in a JSON object, with the caveat that values are discarded. This is a clear verb+resource pair and distinguishes the tool from siblings like validate-json or fetch-status, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to understand what the tool does, though it could be clearer about the input parameter.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or context in which it should be preferred. The agent is left to infer that it is used when counting JSON keys is needed, but no explicit direction or comparison with sibling tools is 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 provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it does not state whether the tool makes network requests, handles invalid URLs, or what the return format is. This leaves significant ambiguity about side effects and error 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, clear sentence with no waste. It front-loads the main purpose and includes the key behavioral detail about dropping query and fragment. It is appropriately 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details about the return structure, error handling, and when to use it compared to similar tools. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and limitations.

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

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

The input schema already describes all 9 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, but it also does not need to since the schema is thorough.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly notes query and fragment are dropped. This is specific and distinct from siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok or playwright-url-ok. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It only notes 'No browser is launched' but fails to clarify whether a network request occurs, what side effects exist, how the various parameters are used, or what the return value looks like. The mention of parameters being 'discarded' is only in the schema, not the description.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it lacks structure that would help an agent quickly grasp the tool's full scope—there is no breakdown of the diverse parameters or usage context. It is under-specified rather than 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?

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how the majority of parameters are used, what the tool actually validates, or how it differs from siblings. An agent cannot reliably determine whether to invoke this tool for inputs like JSON or timezone names.

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

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

The schema descriptions fully cover each parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no value to parameter understanding and actually creates confusion by focusing only on URL while the schema includes many other input types. It does not explain how these parameters relate to the stated 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 whether a URL can be opened'), which gives a clear core purpose. However, the input schema contains 9 unrelated parameters (city, json, zone, etc.) that are not mentioned, making the tool's actual scope ambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like browser-url-ok 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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 that the query is discarded, but does not explain the fate of the other eight parameters, return format, or side effects. The schema descriptions individually note discarding, but the tool-level description is nearly silent.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a behavioral note about discarding. However, it is concise at the expense of necessary detail.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns (presumably a character count), why the other parameters exist, or how they are handled. This is incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description that indicates whether it is used or discarded. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not help clarify which parameter is essential.

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 characters in a search query') with a specific resource, but the 9-parameter schema with many unrelated fields (url, city, json, etc.) creates confusion about which input is actually used. It does not differentiate from sibling counting tools like hn-front-count or memory-key-count, though the name is distinctive.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context for why it accepts so many parameters. An agent would have to infer that only the 'query' parameter is relevant.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing about behavior—no mention of read-only nature, side effects, or what the tool returns. The mismatch between description and parameters further obscures 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 sentence, but it's under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information about what the tool does with the inputs, making it inadequate for agent selection.

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 and no output schema, the description is entirely insufficient. An agent cannot determine the tool's function, its inputs' purpose, or when to invoke it. The mismatch between description and schema makes it impossible to use 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, and in fact seems unrelated to them. It doesn't explain how parameters are used, but the schema already describes each parameter individually.

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's a catalog of HTTP status codes, but the input schema contains 9 unrelated parameters (e.g., ref, url, city, feed) with no apparent connection to status codes. This is misleading and fails to convey the actual purpose.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. The description gives no context for selection, and the parameter set suggests it might overlap with tools like normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone, but no exclusions are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral trait mentioned is 'Prompt discarded,' which suggests inputs are ignored, but it does not clarify whether inputs are validated, whether the template is fixed, or whether there are any side effects. The schema descriptions mention 'shape checks' and 'discarded after' for each parameter, but the description itself is too sparse to convey this.

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

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

The description is extremely concise (two sentences) with no waste, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. Conciseness is not the same as completeness; here the brevity leaves critical information missing, making it inadequate.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the template is, what the parameters are for (even if discarded), how to interpret the output, or any error conditions. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without further information.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is individually documented. The description adds no new meaning about parameters; it merely says 'Prompt discarded,' which is consistent with each schema note but does not enhance understanding of how parameters affect the output. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description fails to synthesize parameter behavior.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('Return a three-step thinking template') and resource, but 'three-step thinking template' is vague and doesn't clarify what the template contains or how it relates to the inputs. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings, which all appear to be utility/check tools. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints at behavior but not purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would not know if this tool is intended for general reasoning, planning, or something else, nor when to prefer it over siblings like 'calc-eval' or 'search-query-len'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects, network access, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens with the many unrelated parameters in the schema. The schema hints at multiple modes (e.g., 'discarded' for most parameters), but the description does not clarify how the tool behaves beyond returning a time.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the core function. However, it is arguably too terse given the complexity of the schema, but the conciseness itself is not penalized heavily.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the role of the extra parameters, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot reliably call this tool without further investigation, making it inadequate for a tool with such a broad schema.

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

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

The schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, but the tool description adds no value beyond that. It does not clarify that only 'zone' is the relevant parameter for the stated purpose, leaving the agent to guess whether other parameters are ignored, alternate modes, or errors. This is a significant gap in guiding correct invocation.

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

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

The description 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' uses a specific verb ('Current time') and resource ('named IANA timezone'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'utc-time' and 'iana-zones'. It is unambiguous and states exactly what the tool 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any contextual cues. The agent must infer its applicability from the name and description alone, which is insufficient given the large sibling list.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output (timestamp) but does not explain the 9 optional parameters, which are clearly discarded after validation. An agent would not know these parameters have no effect on the result, which is a transparency gap. It also does not mention any side effects (likely none) or output format beyond a timestamp.

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

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

The description is one short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified given the tool's parameter surface. It fails to mention that parameters are ignored, which is crucial context. It is not front-loaded with the most important usage information; instead, it omits it entirely. The brevity does not serve clarity here.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, none required, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot know whether passing parameters changes behavior (it does not) or what the exact return format is. The description does not compensate for the schema's detail about parameters being discarded, leaving a significant gap 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%, with each parameter having a description that notes it is discarded or used only for shape checks. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at 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 states 'Current UTC timestamp', which clearly identifies the verb (return) and resource (UTC timestamp). It is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'iana-zones', which also deal with time-related data, so it misses explicit sibling contrast.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context or exclusions, and with siblings like 'timezone' and 'iana-zones' present, an agent has no basis to choose this tool over them. This is a complete absence of usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that 'the body is discarded,' which is a small transparency note, but it fails to indicate whether the operation is read-only, what happens to the other parameters, or whether any output is returned. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It omits critical information about the tool's scope and parameters, making it more of a placeholder than a well-structured description. 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 and no output schema, yet the description only mentions JSON validation. It fails to explain the relevance of parameters like city, zone, url, etc., which suggests a broader validation role. This incompleteness could mislead an agent into thinking the tool only checks JSON when it likely handles multiple shapes. The description is not complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning and does not clarify which parameter corresponds to 'a body' (likely 'json'), nor does it explain the purpose of the many other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('whether a body is valid JSON'), which clearly indicates the core function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling shape-validator tools (e.g., domain-shape, github-repo-shape) which also validate specific formats, and the presence of 8 unrelated parameters suggests the description may be narrower than the actual tool behavior.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'current temperature' and doesn't mention that only the 'city' parameter is used, that other parameters are discarded, or any side effects/limitations. The schema hints at discarding but the description doesn't confirm or add 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?

It is a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified and lacks structure. It doesn't front-load any caveats or usage notes. Brevity is good but at the expense of necessary information.

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

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

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it decides which parameter to use, or any behavioral details. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (all 9 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't clarify that only 'city' matters or explain the role of 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 specific action ('current temperature for a city') but the input schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.) that suggest the tool does far more than weather. This creates confusion about the actual purpose and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like geo-hint or timezone.

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. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or which sibling tool to prefer for other scenarios. An agent is left to infer usage, which is insufficient.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that the body is discarded, which is a minor behavioral detail. It does not mention network access, side effects, permissions, or how the various parameters are handled. The description is silent on most behaviors, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

The description is only two sentences, which is very concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. It lacks structure, such as grouping parameters or explaining the tool's overall function. This is under-specification rather than 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, none required, and no output schema. The description only mentions HTTP status and content type for a URL, but provides no explanation of what happens with the other parameters or what the output format is. An agent cannot determine how to invoke this tool correctly for most of the parameters.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and each parameter has its own description in the schema (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description does not clarify the overall relationship between the URL-focused description and 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 it returns HTTP status and content type for a public URL, which is specific, but it entirely ignores the 8 other optional parameters in the schema (city, json, path, zone, query, etc.). This creates a misleading impression that the tool only handles URLs, when the schema suggests it accepts many unrelated inputs. It does not distinguish 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 on when to use this tool vs the many siblings (fetch-status, browser-url-ok, normalize-url, etc.). The description does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose it over alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Title discarded after the call' but provides no other details about network calls, side effects, or read-only nature. The disclosure is minimal.

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

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

The description is two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose. It earns a high score for brevity.

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

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

Given the 9 parameters and the mismatch between the described purpose and the actual parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use any of the parameters, nor does it describe the return value or output format.

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, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate to the title check, and the parameters seem unrelated to Wikipedia titles.

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

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

The description states a specific action: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling shape-check tools. However, the parameter schema does not include a 'title' parameter, which creates ambiguity about how to invoke it.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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