UTC clock

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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, with no annotations present, the description carries the full burden for transparency and omits other potential side effects like network requests, caching, or 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 highly concise, using two short sentences to convey the primary function and an important caveat. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary detail.

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

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

The description is incomplete in the broader context of the tool. It does not address the additional schema fields, does not describe the output format, and does not clarify how this tool relates to sibling tools. The missing information prevents full understanding of the tool's capabilities and usage.

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 includes four fields (url, host, json, zone) but the description only mentions the URL. It does not explain the purpose of host, json, or zone, leaving the agent unable to correctly populate or interpret these parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema itself.

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 host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which is a specific action. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, preferences, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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

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

The only behavioral detail is 'No identifiers are retained', which addresses privacy but not side effects or mutation. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, performs any write operations, or has other impacts. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, yet it omits crucial side-effect information.

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

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

The description is brief and easily readable, consisting of a single sentence. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, leaving the core function ambiguous. It is not overly verbose, but the lack of detail reduces its effectiveness.

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 does not explain what 'classification' entails, what input combinations are valid, or what the output structure will be. There is no output schema, so the description should provide that context, but it does not. This makes the tool's behavior and results unpredictable to the user.

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 already provides descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone), covering 100% of them. The tool description does not add any semantic meaning to these parameters or clarify how they relate to the classification. Following the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description says 'Show how this request is classified' but does not define what 'classified' means or what output the user should expect. It lacks specificity about the tool's actual function beyond the vague verb 'Show'. Without referencing the parameters or the tool name 'compatibility', the purpose remains unclear.

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 alternative sibling tools like 'normalize-url' or 'validate-json'. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is the appropriate choice. The user is left without context for decision-making.

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

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

The description gives no information about side effects, read-only behavior, error conditions, or output format. The negative statement 'without WHOIS or data' is ambiguous and does not clarify what the tool actually returns.

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

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

The description is short and uses a standard verb-object structure, but the extraneous and unclear 'without WHOIS or data' detracts from precision, and no structured breakdown of behavior is given.

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 mismatch between the description and the parameters, the tool's intended use is incomplete and would leave an agent uncertain about required inputs and expected outputs.

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

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

The schema lists four parameters with descriptions unrelated to hostname splitting (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate'), and the tool description does not explain how or why they are used.

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

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

The description states a clear verb-object pair ('Split a hostname into labels'), but the appended phrase 'without WHOIS or data' is confusing and the listed parameters (url, host, json, tz) do not align with a simple hostname-splitting operation.

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, and no conditions for use or non-use are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or if it has side effects. The behavior is completely opaque.

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

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

The description is concise, using a single sentence, but it is so brief that it omits essential information. Structure is fine, but the content is insufficient.

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

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

Given the sibling tools and the tool's name, the description fails to explain how this tool fits into the ecosystem. It does not mention what output to expect or how the parameters relate to the tool's function, leaving the context incomplete.

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

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

Each parameter has a clear description (url, host, json, zone), but these are unrelated to each other and to the tool's stated purpose. The inclusion of url, host, and json for a timezone tool is confusing and unexplained, reducing clarity.

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

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

The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is vague and does not clearly specify what the tool does. It could be a list, a validation, or something else, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like timezone or tz-utc.

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 or examples, leaving the agent without direction on selecting 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?

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, error handling, or permission requirements. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to address these 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 a single, concise sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to read.

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 omits critical context such as what 'group counts' mean, how the URL or host parameters should be used, and any expectations about the output format. This leaves the description insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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

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

The description adds no clarifying meaning to the parameters, and the schema descriptions are mismatched (e.g., json for validation, timezone name) relative to the tool's stated purpose of fetching robots.txt. This actively confuses rather than aids parameter understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (fetch), the resource (public robots.txt), and the output (group counts only). It is specific enough to convey the core purpose, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url or validate-json. There is no mention of appropriate scenarios, conditions, or limitations, leaving the agent without usage context.

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

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

The description discloses what the tool returns (origin, host, path) and what it discards (query, fragment), which is transparent about its behavior. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions required, or output format. The schema mismatch further clouds behavioral expectations.

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

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

The description is two sentences, concise and to the point. It front-loads the primary action and includes a clear note about what is dropped, with no unnecessary filler.

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

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

The description is incomplete given the mismatch between the stated purpose and the schema. It does not explain the extra parameters, lacks an output schema, and fails to provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

The description only mentions the URL parameter implicitly, but the schema includes host, json, and zone with no explanation of their roles. The parameter semantics are largely unexplained and appear inconsistent with 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 the tool returns origin, host, and path from a URL and drops query and fragment, which is clear about its core function. However, the input schema lists unrelated fields (host, json, zone), creating confusion about the actual purpose. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like citation or compatibility.

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 context is given for typical use cases, edge cases, or situations where other tools would be more appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, side effects, or required permissions, leaving the agent uninformed.

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, directly stating the tool's content without any fluff.

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?

While the description is brief, it fails to explain the relationship between the parameters and the catalog, nor does it specify the output format, leaving the tool's functionality incomplete for an agent.

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

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

The schema lists four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with descriptions that do not relate to HTTP status codes, and the tool description does not explain how these parameters are used, creating a significant semantic gap.

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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' clearly indicates the tool's purpose of providing a catalog of HTTP status codes, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list.'

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 over the sibling tools; the description is purely informational without any usage context.

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

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

There are no annotations to indicate read-only or side-effect behavior, and the description does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it performs a lookup, or any other behavioral details. The description fails to carry the burden of transparency in the absence of annotations.

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

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

The description is extremely terse, but it is not appropriately structured or front-loaded with useful information. It omits critical details about parameters and behavior, so its brevity is a liability rather than a strength.

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

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

The description is incomplete given the schema's complexity and the presence of seemingly irrelevant parameters. There is no output schema, no explanation of the relationship between the parameters and the tool's purpose, and no context about expected inputs or results.

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

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

The schema lists four parameters (url, host, json, zone) but the description only vaguely references the timezone. The parameters url, host, and json are completely unexplained and appear unrelated to the stated purpose, leaving the agent without any understanding of how to fill them.

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

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

The description 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb-based action, and it does not distinguish this tool from sibling time-related tools like tz-utc or utc-time. It leaves ambiguity about what exactly is returned or how the timezone is used.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tz-utc or utc-time. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the current UTC time, with no mention of read-only guarantees, output format, or how the schema's url/host/json/zone parameters affect behavior. The schema hints at normalization and validation behaviors that the description completely ignores.

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 fragment with no wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it under-specifies the tool's actual behavior and relationship to its parameters.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and overlapping siblings like utc-time and timezone, a one-sentence description is far from adequate. It fails to explain what the parameters do in context, what output format to expect, or how this tool differs from obvious alternatives.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear explanation, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning and does not connect the parameters 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 resource ('Current local time in UTC') but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return', and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as utc-time and timezone. The unrelated parameters in the schema (url, host, json) also muddy 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 about when to use this tool versus utc-time, timezone, or any other sibling. The description provides no context, exclusions, or alternative routing, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions, or whether it performs any actions beyond returning a timestamp. It is a simple getter, but the lack of any explicit transparency note limits the score.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that gets to the point immediately. It is well-structured for brevity, though it sacrifices necessary detail, which prevents a perfect score.

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

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

The description is far too incomplete for the tool's complexity. It does not explain the role of the four parameters, the output format, or how this tool fits among siblings. Essential context is missing, leaving the agent unable to use it correctly.

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

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

The schema lists four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with full descriptions, but none of these are logically related to fetching a UTC timestamp. The tool description does not explain how these parameters are used, creating a severe mismatch between the tool's purpose and its input schema.

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

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

The description states the tool returns the current UTC timestamp, which is clear in intent. However, it lacks details about the output format or how it differs from sibling tools like tz-utc or timezone, making it ambiguous in a broader context.

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, use cases, or conditions, leaving the agent to guess when this should be invoked.

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

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

The description discloses that the body is discarded, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects beyond that (e.g., whether it validates against a schema, returns a boolean, or throws errors). Without annotations, this partial disclosure is somewhat helpful but incomplete.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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

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

Given the mismatched parameters and lack of clarification on which parameter actually serves as the 'body,' the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the validation task, leaving ambiguity about required inputs and expected output.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters, several are clearly mismatched or irrelevant: 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' 'host' as 'Public hostname,' and 'zone' as 'IANA timezone name'—none of which pertain to JSON validation. Only 'json' has a sensible description. The misleading parameter semantics severely undermine usability.

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 primary action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and the resource (the JSON body). It is concise and understandable, though the parameter names do not perfectly align with the described resource, slightly reducing clarity.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The only hint is 'The body is discarded,' which implies a stateless check, but there is no explicit usage direction.

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