ULID character length

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses only that the path is discarded, but says nothing about what parsing entails, what is returned, or how errors are handled. For a tool with no annotation support, 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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks the minimal context needed to invoke the tool correctly, so the brevity does not add 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a single sentence is completely inadequate. The tool does not explain which parameter to use, what 'shape' checking means, or what the result looks like. This is a serious completeness failure.

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 does not clarify which of the 9 parameters is the Figma URL. The 'url' parameter is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which conflicts with the tool's stated Figma-specific purpose. The mention of 'Path discarded' also muddles the 'path' parameter, which is described as a file path, not a URL path.

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

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

The description 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' identifies a specific verb and resource, and notes a behavioral detail (path discarded). It is distinguishable from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 shape-checking tools (normalize-url, file-path-ok, github-repo-shape). The description gives no context about input selection or conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core parsing action and does not mention that many parameters are discarded, that the operation is read-only, or what the output looks like. The schema hints at discarding, but the description itself is 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any filler. 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain how parameters like city, feed, or json relate to the tool, nor does it describe the return format or error behavior. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly without additional inference.

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 tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which already documents each parameter. However, the description does not clarify which parameters are actually relevant to the URL parsing task, leaving potential confusion about the many unrelated 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 verb 'parse' and the resource 'GitHub URL', specifying it extracts 'owner and repo'. This distinguishes it from sibling URL-shape tools like domain-shape, figma-url-shape, and jira-key-shape, which target other domains.

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 such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. It does not mention exclusions or conditions for selection; usage is only implied by the tool's name and the phrase 'GitHub URL'.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states 'Fetch' but the schema suggests a validation tool that discards most inputs. No disclosure of what happens to parameters, side effects, or actual behavior. The mismatch is a serious transparency failure.

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 so incomplete and misleading that it fails its purpose. Brevity does not compensate for incorrect 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 no annotations, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain the actual multi-purpose validation nature, what 'group counts' means, or how parameters relate to the stated action. Completely inadequate 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaning to the parameters and actively misleads by implying a robots.txt fetch. It fails to clarify that parameters like city, feed, and json are for separate validation checks, not for fetching robots.txt.

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 to fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts, but the schema lists 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, zone, query, etc.) with descriptions indicating they are validation checks. This is misleading; the purpose is unclear and contradicts the schema.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. The description does not mention alternatives 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions 'Prompt discarded,' which hints that input is ignored, but this is ambiguous—does it mean the user prompt or the parameter values? The parameter descriptions suggest each parameter is validated then discarded, yet the tool's overall behavior is not disclosed. No side effects, return format, or error conditions are described.

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—one short sentence. While conciseness is valued, this under-specification fails to communicate the tool's purpose or usage effectively. The note 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous and poorly placed, adding confusion rather than 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the thinking template's content, when to invoke the tool, how parameters are used, or what the returned template looks like. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly based on the provided definition.

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 an individual description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters; it only vaguely says 'Prompt discarded.' While the schema documents each parameter, the description does not explain how parameters influence the template or if they are entirely ignored, leaving the relationship unclear. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 action ('Return a three-step thinking template') with a clear output resource. It is not a tautology and distinguishes this tool from siblings by describing a unique behavior. However, it does not clarify what the template is for or how it relates to the parameters, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and the sibling list offers many other tools with no routing hints. An agent would have to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It provides zero details on what the tool does, whether it mutates anything, what it returns, or how inputs are used. The only hint is the phrase 'discarded after the length check' inside some parameter descriptions, but the tool description itself is silent on 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, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single noun phrase provides no actionable structure and wastes no words but also conveys almost nothing.

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

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

For a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, the role of each parameter, or the return value. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% because each parameter has a description, but the tool description adds no meaning linking parameters to a 'ULID' concept. It does not clarify which parameter is the ULID string or how the others relate to the length check. The parameter descriptions provide basic context, but the tool description fails to integrate 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 is a noun phrase 'ULID character length' – it does not state an action like 'returns the character length of a ULID'. It gives no clue which of the 9 parameters represents the ULID, nor does it differentiate from siblings like search-query-len or memory-key-count. It is vague and not a tautology but falls short of a clear purpose.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. An agent cannot infer when to call this instead of a sibling length 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 provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the data source (Open-Meteo) and the output (current temperature), but says nothing about network dependencies, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with non-city parameters. The behavior for other inputs is completely undisclosed.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and easy to parse. However, it is under-specified, missing critical details. Conciseness itself is good, but the structure could include more context without becoming verbose.

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

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

For a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain return format, how to construct calls, or which parameters are relevant for weather. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters have descriptive text. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides; it does not clarify how the various parameters relate to the stated weather purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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

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

The description clearly states the primary function: getting current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. However, the input schema includes eight additional parameters (ref, url, json, path, zone, query, etc.) that are not mentioned, creating ambiguity about whether the tool serves other purposes. This mismatch reduces clarity for an agent trying to understand when to use 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (geo-hint, lib-docs-hint, etc.). It does not mention alternatives, conditions, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess the tool's scope among a large set of similar 'hint' utilities.

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