UTC Clock

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Page content is not stored' is a useful privacy guarantee, but the description does not disclose how the URL is fetched, whether redirects are followed, what happens with json or zone inputs, or any other side effects. The transparency is only partial.

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. The first sentence is action-oriented and front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a relevant privacy note. It earns its length, though it is arguably too short for the scope of the schema.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain how json and zone relate to the URL operation, what the return value looks like, or which combinations of parameters are valid. An agent would have to guess at the intended 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and provides a baseline of 3. The description adds context only for the URL parameter (host, scheme, HTTP status) and does not improve understanding of host, json, or zone beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a concrete behavior: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL,' which is clear for a URL-checking tool. However, the schema also exposes host, json, and zone parameters, and the description does not explain how those fit, leaving the tool's overall purpose ambiguous despite the clear URL-focused sentence.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The first sentence implies a URL-checking use case, but nothing says when to prefer citation over siblings like normalize-url, status, validate-json, or timezone, especially given the extra json and zone parameters.

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 fully carries the behavior disclosure burden. It does reveal one useful fact—'No identifiers are retained'—but it omits whether the operation is read-only, what 'classification' means, or any side effects. For an unannotated tool with four parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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

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

The description is short and avoids redundancy, with both sentences adding something. However, the brevity borders on under-specification: 'show how this request is classified' is a tagline rather than a complete operational description. It is concise but not fully informative.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse for an agent to confidently decide when to invoke it. The schema explains the parameters but not the purpose or expected result. The privacy note is helpful but not enough to make the tool self-explanatory.

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 parameters are already self-documenting. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it compensates slightly by noting that identifiers are not retained, which complements the 'json' parameter's 'discarded after the check' hint. This meets the baseline 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 states a verb ('show') and a resource ('this request'), but 'classified' is vague—it doesn't specify what classification system or categories are involved. It also doesn't distinguish the tool from siblings like 'citation' or 'domain-shape.' An agent would still need to infer the actual operation from the parameter names.

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, nor does it mention what input conditions warrant calling it. The only contextual hint is the privacy statement, which is a behavior note, not a usage guideline.

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 behavioral disclosure burden, but it only covers label splitting. It does not explain how the schema's four parameters (url, host, json, zone) are used, which is authoritative, or what the output looks like.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a useful scoping caveat. It contains no filler, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral 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 tool has four heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description offers no output format, no parameter prioritization, and no usage context. This is too sparse for an agent to invoke confidently 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 of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning and arguably misaligns with the schema, which accepts json and zone in addition to hostname-related inputs.

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 operation — 'split a hostname into labels' — and explicitly scopes out WHOIS/ownership data, which helps distinguish it from ownership-oriented domain tools. It is clear and actionable, though it does not position itself relative to the actual sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json.

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

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

No guidance is given for when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The caveat 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies it is not for ownership lookups, but sibling tools are never mentioned, so an agent must infer the selection logic.

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, but it only says the tool provides common IANA timezone names. It does not disclose whether the list is static, whether the zone parameter filters it, what the response format is, or whether any side effects exist.

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 free of fluff, but it is a fragment rather than a complete, informative instruction. It could earn a higher score by starting with an action verb and clearly stating the return 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?

The core idea is present, but the tool appears to expose four unrelated parameters and has no output schema. An agent cannot confidently determine what to pass or what to expect back, making the description incomplete for reliable 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?

Although the schema descriptions are complete for each parameter, they seem mismatched to this tool: url, host, and json appear to belong to sibling tools rather than to a list of timezone names. The description does not clarify whether any of these parameters are relevant or how they influence the output.

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 identifies the tool as a source of common IANA timezone names for clock calls, so the resource is recognizable. However, it uses a noun phrase instead of an action verb like 'List' or 'Get', and it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as timezone or utc-time.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints that it may be a helper for sibling clock tools, but there is no statement about how it relates to timezone/utc-time or any 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful scope by saying 'group counts only,' signaling that full robots.txt content is not returned, but it does not mention network behavior, failure modes, or limits.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. 'Only' adds meaningful scope without extra words.

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 four parameters whose mapping to the stated purpose is unexplained, and there is no output schema to clarify return values. An agent would struggle to decide what to pass for 'json' or 'zone' when fetching a robots.txt, making the one-line description insufficient.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic and largely mismatched to the tool's purpose ('json' to validate, 'zone' as timezone, 'url' to normalize or cite). The description adds no clarification about how these parameters relate to fetching a robots.txt, so it fails to compensate for the confusing schema.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('public robots.txt'), and a precise result ('return group counts only'), so an agent understands the core action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

The usage context is implied: use this when you need group counts from a public robots.txt file. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, what precedes it, or how it compares to alternatives like 'citation.'

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 a valuable behavior beyond any annotations: query and fragment are dropped, which reveals the normalization transformation. However, with no annotations to carry the safety or side-effect burden, it fails to disclose what happens when the other schema parameters (host, json, zone) are supplied, and it implicitly conflicts with the schema by listing host as an output while the schema accepts it as an input.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary outcome is front-loaded ('Return origin, host, and path'), and the second sentence adds the crucial transformation detail about dropped query and fragment. Every sentence 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 tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description only covers the URL case. It never explains why host, json, and zone are accepted as inputs, whether url is actually required, or what happens when multiple parameters are passed together. An agent cannot confidently predict the tool's behavior for any invocation other than a simple url-only 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no per-parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only implies that url is the primary input and that origin, host, and path are the output components. It does not clarify the oddity of host, json, and zone being optional inputs at all.

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 concrete operation: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and adds a specific behavior note that query and fragment are dropped. The verb and resource are clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, and the schema's unrelated optional parameters (host as input, json, zone) muddy the tool's true scope, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no clarification that url is effectively required despite the schema having 0 required parameters. The description implies usage through its return statement, but the mix of url, host, json, and zone parameters leaves an agent without a clear decision rule for calling the 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-only reference ('short catalog') but does not disclose the return format, whether inputs like url, host, json, or zone affect output, or any side effects. The input schema hints at validation/normalization behavior ('JSON text to validate; discarded after the check') that the description never connects to the status-code catalog.

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 eight-word sentence with no filler, and the core subject is front-loaded. It is efficient and easy to parse, though the brevity contributes to the behavioral and usage gaps noted elsewhere.

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 four unrelated-looking optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It never explains why a status-code catalog would accept a URL, JSON text, timezone name, and host, nor what the agent should expect in return. The description covers the happy-path concept but not enough to invoke the tool with confidence.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a meaningful description (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The tool description adds nothing about how url, host, json, or zone relate to the catalog lookup. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema is sufficient but the description fails to link the parameters to the tool'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 states the resource clearly — a catalog of common HTTP status codes — and the subject is distinct from siblings like validate-json or timezone. However, it is a noun phrase without an explicit action verb ('return', 'look up'), and it largely restates what the name 'status-catalog' already implies. It is clear but under-specified about what the agent can actually do with 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or validate-json; there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues. The only signal is the name and the one-line description, which implies a reference lookup but never states it explicitly. For a tool with multiple optional parameters, this is a notable gap.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does convey that this is a read-only time lookup. However, it does not disclose response format, handling of invalid or unknown timezone names, clock source, or precision. These are meaningful gaps for a tool with no output schema and no annotation safety signals.

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 filler. It front-loads the core behavior and remains appropriately short for a simple lookup tool.

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 adequate for a simple read-only tool, but no output schema or annotations exist to fill gaps. It does not explain the return format or error behavior, and the schema's unrelated parameters create potential confusion about what to pass. More explicit linkage between the timezone behavior and the zone parameter would improve completeness.

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 the relevant zone parameter. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, json) in the schema is confusing, but the description does not clarify or compensate for 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 states a clear, specific operation: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like inspect, status, and validate, which serve different purposes. Although it lacks an explicit verb, the meaning is unambiguous and not a tautology of the tool name.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or when not to use it. The description gives no context about selecting timezone over inspect, status, citation, or normalize. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and one short sentence.

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, but it only states the output. It does not explain what happens when url, host, json, or zone are supplied, or whether they are ignored, rejected, or used.

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 with no waste. It is appropriately brief for a simple operation, though the phrase 'for autonomous clients' adds limited practical 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?

Even though the core operation is simple, the tool has four optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description must clarify how those parameters relate to the result. It does not, leaving an agent unsure whether to pass a zone, URL, or no arguments at all.

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 definition, which sets a neutral baseline. The description adds no parameter guidance, and the parameters appear unrelated to a timestamp operation, but the schemas themselves are self-explanatory.

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 the current UTC timestamp, which is specific and unambiguous. It lacks an explicit verb and does not contrast with the sibling 'timezone' tool, but the resource is clearly identified.

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 utc-time versus timezone, iana-zones, or other siblings. The description implies a use case but provides no exclusions, alternatives, or selection 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the body is discarded after the check, signaling non-persistence. However, this fact is also repeated in the schema's json parameter description, and there is no mention of return behavior or error handling.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with no 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?

For a simple validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description states the main operation and the disposability of the input. It does not describe what the tool returns, and the three unrelated schema parameters are left undifferentiated, which prevents a higher score.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; in particular, it does not explain why url, host, and zone appear on a JSON-validation tool or clarify that they are irrelevant.

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 concrete operation—check whether a body is valid JSON—with a clear resource/input. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling URL, timezone, and robots tools, so an agent can tell what it is for without inspecting 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?

The description gives a clear context for when to use the tool: whenever JSON validity needs to be checked. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling overlaps with this purpose, so the guidance is adequate.

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