ULID Crockford charset

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state 'No disk access,' which is a useful safety guarantee. However, it doesn't disclose the return format, what triggers an unsafe result, or whether it modifies anything. The single behavior disclosed is positive, 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 with only two sentences. Both sentences are meaningful: the purpose and a key safety behavior. It is front-loaded and has no fluff, earning a high score for conciseness.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, but the description only addresses the path check. It fails to explain the purpose of the other 8 parameters or clarify that they are ignored. An agent would be confused about what to provide for ref, url, city, etc. This is a significant gap 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add meaning to the parameters, but the baseline is 3 when schema is complete. The mismatch between the description focusing only on 'path' and the schema containing eight unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) creates ambiguity, though the schema descriptions themselves are clear.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' This matches the tool name and distinguishes it from URL/domain checkers like browser-url-ok or domain-shape. However, it doesn't define what 'safe' means, which is a minor gap.

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 does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is a single statement 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behaviors. It only mentions that titles are discarded, which is vague and unrelated to the parameters. No side effects, permissions, or operational details are disclosed, making it insufficient.

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

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

The description is very brief, which is concise, but it omits critical information about parameter usage and output. Given the tool has nine parameters, the brevity is a deficiency, not a strength, as it fails to provide necessary context.

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

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

The description is severely incomplete for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, or what the 'count' refers to, making it inadequate for correct 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 schema descriptions already provide parameter details (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), but the tool description does not connect these parameters to the counting function. It adds no meaning beyond the schema and leaves the relevance of parameters like 'url' or 'city' unexplained.

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 Hacker News front-page stories. However, it does not explain how the input parameters relate to this action, making the purpose ambiguous given the schema. It is distinguishable from siblings by name but not by explicit comparison.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. No context or selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal 'Body discarded' (suggesting only the status is returned), but it fails to explain what happens with the input parameters, whether the operation is read-only, or that many parameters are discarded after checks. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with such a broad schema.

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

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

The description is extremely short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no other context. It omits essential information about the tool's actual functionality, making it insufficiently informative despite its 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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between the stated purpose and the parameters, how to invoke the tool correctly, or what the response structure is beyond 'status'. An agent cannot determine the correct usage or interpretation.

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 each parameter individually described (including discard behavior), so the schema already provides clear meaning. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, but it does not help an agent understand which parameter to prioritize or how they 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 action ('HTTP status') and a resource ('public library docs URL'), but the input schema includes 9 diverse parameters (city, timezone, JSON, file path, search query) that are unrelated to that stated purpose. This mismatch makes the actual tool purpose unclear and potentially misleading, as an agent cannot tell what the tool really does with these parameters.

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 the many sibling tools such as browser-url-ok, fetch-status, normalize-url, or others. The description offers no context about the intended use case, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool checks URL openness and that no browser is launched. It does not disclose whether network requests are made, what happens with the auxiliary parameters, whether there are side effects, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is a severe omission for a tool with nine parameters.

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

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

The description is only two sentences and is front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good for conciseness. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful; the second sentence about no browser is a differentiator but does not earn its place because it lacks context. It is concise but not effectively structured for an agent to act on.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the tool's overall behavior, the role of each parameter, expected inputs, return values, or error cases. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone. The complexity demands far more context.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% so each parameter has a description, but the tool description adds no additional meaning. It does not explain why parameters like 'city', 'zone', 'json', or 'path' are relevant to checking a URL, nor how they are used or discarded. The descriptions in the schema are terse and the tool description provides no cross-referencing, leaving agents to infer relationships. The description fails to compensate for the unusual parameter set.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Check whether a URL can be opened'), but the presence of nine unrelated parameters (city, zone, json, path, query, etc.) muddies the purpose. It does not clarify how these parameters relate to URL checking or what 'can be opened' means operationally. Differentiates from siblings only by 'No browser is launched', which is minimal.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is 'No browser is launched', which implies it might be for lightweight checks, but it does not explicitly name browser-url-ok or any other sibling, nor does it state conditions for preferring this tool. Lacks any when/when-not direction.

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

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

The description discloses that the query is discarded, which is a behavioral note, but this information already appears in the schema for the query parameter ('discarded after the length check'). It does not describe behavior for the other parameters, nor does it state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. With no annotations, the description should carry more of the behavioral burden but fails to do so comprehensively.

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) and front-loads the core purpose. However, for a tool with nine parameters and no annotations, it is under-specified, omitting essential information about the other inputs. It is concise but not appropriately sized for 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 nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description addresses only one parameter (query) and does not explain the purpose of the other eight, nor the expected return value (though 'count' implies a number). This is severely incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, making it nearly unusable 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?

The schema provides descriptions for all nine parameters (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. However, the description only mentions 'search query', which could mislead an agent into thinking only the query parameter matters, while the schema has many other fields. This adds confusion rather than clarity, so the description provides negative value despite 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 states a clear action (count characters) and resource (a search query), which is specific. However, it does not clarify the role of the other eight parameters in the schema, making the tool's full purpose ambiguous. It also does not distinguish it from sibling counting tools like memory-key-count or hn-front-count.

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 simply states the operation, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools, so the agent gets no help in tool selection.

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