UTC weekday 1-7

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that page content is not stored, which is a behavioral guarantee. However, it doesn't disclose whether the tool makes network requests, its error behavior, timeouts, or any side effects. The description provides some context but lacks depth.

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 function and includes a useful qualifier. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only covers one aspect (URL info) and ignores the other three parameters. There is no explanation of how host, json, or zone relate to the tool's purpose. Additionally, with many sibling tools, the lack of usage guidelines makes it incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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

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

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter information—it only mentions 'URL' implicitly. The parameters host, json, and zone are not tied to the described function, creating ambiguity, but since the schema already documents them, the description's lack of clarification is not a major penalty.

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 verb and resource. It also adds a clarifying note that page content is not stored. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like status-catalog or normalize-url, which might overlap in function.

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 use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The note about page content not being stored is the only hint, but it's not an explicit 'use this when you need basic URL metadata' instruction.

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 note is 'No identifiers are retained,' which gives some privacy information but does not explain what the tool does, what side effects occur, or what the output/return behavior is. With no annotations, more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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, and the parameter descriptions are short and direct. No unnecessary wording or redundancy is present.

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 the return value or output looks like, how to interpret the classification, or how the parameters are used together. This is too incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke and use the tool.

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

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

Each parameter has a brief description (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate'), so coverage is complete. However, the descriptions are generic and do not explain how these parameters relate to the 'compatibility' classification, limiting semantic 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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not clearly state what 'compatibility' refers to or what resource is being acted upon. It does not sufficiently distinguish this tool from siblings like validate-json or normalize-url.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the alternative sibling tools. The description offers no usage context, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent select it.

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 hint is the exclusion of WHOIS or ownership data, which implies the tool is read-only and does not fetch external data. However, there is no disclosure about side effects, rate limits, or error behavior, and no annotations are provided to fill this 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 concise, consisting of a single sentence that conveys the core functionality. It is well-structured and easy to read, though it could benefit from a brief explanation of the 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?

The tool lacks an output schema, and the parameter descriptions are mismatched and unexplained. Combined with the minimal description, the agent has insufficient information to correctly invoke this tool, especially given the confusing parameter list.

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 parameters (url, host, json, timezone) with descriptions that are entirely unrelated to splitting a hostname into labels. For example, 'json' is described as 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check,' which makes no sense for this tool. The description does not clarify how these parameters relate to the tool's stated purpose, leaving the agent confused.

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: 'Split a hostname into labels.' It also clarifies that it does not provide WHOIS or ownership data, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or inspect-robots.

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 the sibling tools. There is no mention of scenarios where splitting a hostname into labels is needed or when to choose this over alternatives like normalize-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 are present, and the description discloses no behavioral details—whether the tool returns a static list, accepts input, performs validation, or has side effects. The behavior is entirely 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 very brief (a single noun phrase), which is concise, but it lacks any structure—no sentence explaining operation, output, or usage. It is terse to the point of being uninformative.

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 apparent simplicity, the description still fails to state what it returns, how parameters relate to its function, or how it fits with sibling tools. The description is inadequate for an agent to invoke 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 generic descriptions that appear copied from other tools (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), none of which are explained by the tool description. For a tool seemingly about timezone names, the relevance of most parameters is unclear or misleading.

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 name 'iana-zones' and the phrase 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' hint at a list of timezone identifiers, but the description lacks an explicit verb or statement of what the tool actually does (e.g., 'List all IANA timezone names'). The purpose is only weakly inferable.

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 (timezone, utc-time, weekday-number, etc.). There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or 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?

The description provides only a minimal behavioral statement (fetch and return counts). No details about error handling, rate limits, or side effects. More critically, the parameter descriptions for 'json' and 'zone' are unrelated to robots.txt, suggesting the tool behavior may not match the stated purpose or may be misleading.

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 straightforward, using a single sentence. However, the mismatch between the description and the parameter list slightly reduces structural coherence, though the text itself is concise.

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

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

The tool lacks sufficient context due to the mismatched parameters and absent output schema. The description does not explain how the parameters relate to fetching robots.txt, nor does it specify the return format of 'group counts'. This leaves significant ambiguity 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 includes four parameters with descriptions, but they are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose. 'url' and 'host' are plausible, but 'json' (validate JSON) and 'zone' (IANA timezone) are irrelevant to fetching robots.txt. This suggests a schema mismatch or copy-paste error, making parameter semantics unreliable.

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) and resource (public robots.txt) and the output (group counts). It is distinguishable from sibling tools, though 'group counts' is somewhat vague. No explicit comparison to siblings, but purpose is evident.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like normalize-url and validate-json exist but are not referenced, and no conditions or contexts are provided.

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

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

The description discloses the key behavioral detail that query and fragment are dropped, and that origin, host, and path are returned. There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not mention error behavior or edge cases, but it gives a reasonable expectation of the output.

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, compact sentence that fully conveys the primary behavior. No superfluous words or redundant explanations. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action.

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 is simple, but the description is incomplete due to the mismatched parameters. It does not explain how host, json, and zone are used, nor does it provide any output format or example. Given the confusing parameter set, the description fails to give a complete picture of the tool's 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?

The schema lists four parameters (url, host, json, zone) with individual descriptions, but the tool description only discusses URL. The parameter descriptions for host, json, and zone seem unrelated to the tool's purpose (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check' and 'IANA timezone name'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to clarify how these parameters relate to URL normalization. This is a severe mismatch.

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 function: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL, and drops query and fragment. This is a specific verb (return) and resource (URL), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on URL normalization, though it does not 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., domain-shape, inspect-robots). It only describes what it does, leaving the selection criteria implicit. No exclusions or conditions 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?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any side effects, read-only behavior, or safety implications. It is unclear whether the tool mutates data, returns information, or has other effects.

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 short and avoids redundancy, but it is too sparse to be considered well-structured. The single sentence provides minimal information and does not logically connect the purpose to the 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?

The description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, the role of each parameter, or how it relates to the sibling tools. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the parameters leaves the tool functionally undefined.

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 parameters (url, host, json, zone) are not explained in relation to the catalog of HTTP status codes. There is no description of how each parameter is used or what role they play, making the tool's inputs meaningless.

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

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

The description states it is a catalog of HTTP status codes, but the parameters (url, host, json, zone) are unrelated, making the actual purpose unclear. The verb 'catalog' is vague and does not specify what action the tool performs.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and offers no details on error handling (e.g., invalid zone), DST considerations, return format, or whether the time is server-side or client-side. The description is a bare statement.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single, clear sentence. It wastes no words. However, it may be too terse, leaving out necessary context about 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?

For a simple tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return format, error behavior, and, critically, the fact that only the 'zone' parameter is used while others are irrelevant. The misleading schema adds complexity that the description fails to address.

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 the schema has 100% coverage (each parameter has a description), the description does not clarify that only 'zone' is actually used. The presence of 'url', 'host', and 'json' with unrelated descriptions (normalize, cite, validate) is confusing; an agent might wonder if the tool handles those as well. The description should explicitly state that only 'zone' is relevant, but it does not.

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 function: returning current time for a named IANA timezone. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like utc-time (which likely returns UTC) and iana-zones (which likely lists zones). However, it does not explicitly mention the 'zone' parameter or clarify that other schema fields are irrelevant, which slightly muddies the 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 like utc-time or iana-zones. No context is given for when a named timezone lookup is preferred over UTC or zone enumeration.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Current UTC timestamp.' with no mention of return format, whether the zone parameter is honored, read-only nature, or any other behavior. The agent is left completely in the dark about what happens when called.

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, which is good, but it is too short to be useful. It is front-loaded but provides almost no information. It is not an example of tight, informative writing; it is just a phrase.

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, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain how to use the parameters, what the return value looks like, or how it differs from sibling tools. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on this 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%, but the parameter descriptions (URL, host, JSON, zone) appear entirely unrelated to a UTC timestamp tool. The description adds no clarification about why these parameters exist or how they affect the output. An agent would be confused about what to pass. The description fails to compensate for the schema's irrelevance.

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 a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'weekday-number', so an agent cannot easily know which to pick without further investigation.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without routing information.

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

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

The description explicitly notes that the body is discarded, which is a relevant side effect. However, it does not explain other behavioral aspects like return format or error handling, and the parameter descriptions are misleading, which detracts from overall transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely concise and to the point, using only two short sentences. There is no unnecessary verbosity or redundancy.

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 lacks essential context such as what constitutes a 'body', how the tool should be called, and why unrelated parameters exist. The mismatch between the tool's purpose and its parameters means the description is incomplete for reliable use.

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 every parameter has a description, most are irrelevant to JSON validation: 'url' is described as an HTTPS URL to normalize, 'host' as a public hostname, and 'zone' as an IANA timezone name. Only 'json' has a relevant description, so the parameter semantics are actively misleading.

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 function: checking whether a body is valid JSON. However, the parameter list includes unrelated fields (url, host, zone) that contradict the stated purpose, so it is not perfectly clear.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of selection criteria or context, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate invocation.

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 side effects, network requests, or side effects. Given the parameters include 'url' and 'host', it is unclear whether the tool performs external actions, making its behavior 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 extremely brief, which is concise, but it lacks essential detail. It is not verbose, but the lack of substance makes the conciseness ineffective for understanding the 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 omits critical context about the input-output relationship. With four parameters and no explanation of how they produce a weekday number, the agent has no basis for constructing a correct invocation. The tool is completely underspecified.

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 description, but they are unrelated to the tool's stated purpose of returning a weekday number. The descriptions are individually clear but do not cohere with the tool name, leaving the agent unable to infer how the parameters 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 'UTC weekday 1-7' merely restates the tool name without explaining what the tool does or how it relates to the parameters. There is no clear statement of the tool's function or output, leaving the agent unable to determine its purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'utc-time' or 'timezone'. The description lacks any context for selecting this tool over sibling tools.

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