XML tag count, body discarded

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states that no browser is launched, but doesn't explain whether a network request occurs, how 'can be opened' is determined, or what happens to the many other parameters. The schema's 'discarded' hints are not reflected in the description.

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 terse sentence, which is concise but under-specified for a tool with nine parameters. It lacks structure or prioritization, and the one statement provided doesn't earn its place given the 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a nine-parameter input. The description provides almost no context: no return value, no side effects, no indication of which parameters matter, and no relationship to siblings. This is wholly inadequate for an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds nothing about parameters and the schema descriptions themselves are misleading (e.g., 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than being checked). The description does not clarify that 'url' is the primary parameter, leaving the agent uncertain which field to supply.

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 ('check whether a URL can be opened') but the input schema includes nine parameters with many unrelated to URLs (city, zone, json, path, query). This mismatch makes the tool's true scope ambiguous, and no differentiation from siblings like normalize-url or playwright-url-ok is provided.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about which sibling it complements or replaces. An agent is left to infer entirely from the name.

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. It mentions making an HTTP HEAD request but omits details about side effects, rate limits, error behavior, or how the other parameters (ref, city, feed, etc.) are handled. The schema descriptions note that several parameters are 'discarded' after checks, but the tool description does not clarify that it performs multiple kinds of status checks, not just URL HEAD requests.

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, which is concise, but it is not front-loaded with the most critical information for an agent (e.g., what statuses are returned, what inputs are accepted). It is adequately sized but under-specified 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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is severely inadequate. It fails to explain the return format, the variety of checks it can perform, or how it relates to the many sibling tools. An agent would have to infer most behavior from the schema 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 each parameter has a description that explains its purpose and disposal. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'HEAD a public URL and return status only.' This clearly conveys the core action. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like web-fetch, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url, nor does it acknowledge the broader range of input types reflected in the schema (e.g., feed, json, zone).

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 sibling list includes many specialized tools, and the description gives no hint about selection criteria, such as 'use when you only need a status code' or 'prefer web-fetch for full content.'

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 disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'Path discarded,' which is ambiguous and does not clarify what happens to other inputs or what the tool returns. The schema parameter descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') provide more behavioral detail than the main description, but the description itself is sparse.

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, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It omits the tool's multi-parameter nature and any behavioral caveats, making it under-specified rather than appropriately 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool checks, what it returns, or how it handles the varied inputs. An agent cannot reliably determine how to call this tool 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?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning; it does not even acknowledge the existence of multiple parameters. While the schema descriptions are thorough (100% coverage), the description's singular focus on a Figma URL misrepresents the tool's actual interface, potentially confusing an agent about which parameters to provide.

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 ('Parse a Figma file URL'), but it fails to match the actual schema, which accepts 9 unrelated optional parameters (ref, city, feed, json, etc.). This narrow scope is misleading and does not distinguish the tool from siblings like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, which also validate specific shapes.

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 sibling list includes many similar 'shape' tools, but the description offers no context for choosing figma-url-shape over them.

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 behavior, but it only states a vague noun phrase. It gives no information about side effects, restrictions, output, or what inputs are used/discarded, and the schema hints at discarding and validation but the description does not clarify.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any actionable content, so brevity is not a virtue here; it fails to earn 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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is radically incomplete. The agent cannot infer the tool's purpose, side effects, or expected return from this text alone, making it nearly impossible 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are individually described, but the tool description adds zero semantic value beyond the schema. The parameter descriptions themselves are odd (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), yet the tool description does not tie them together or explain the tool's actual function, so it fails to compensate for the overall ambiguity.

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

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

The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' does not state what the tool actually does. It gives no verb or resource, and the schema contains 9 unrelated parameters (url, json, host, etc.) that have nothing to do with timezone names, making the purpose confusing and misleading.

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 siblings like timezone or utc-time. There is no mention of contexts, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions that query and fragment are dropped, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not address the nine parameters, some of which (e.g., city, zone, json) are unrelated to URL normalization, nor does it mention whether any network access or side effects occur. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, tightly packed sentence that states the core action and the key output. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It earns a top 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 nine parameters, but the description only addresses URL normalization. It does not explain the relevance or discard behavior of the other parameters, even though the schema indicates they are discarded. Without an output schema, the description is the only source for return values, and it does mention them. However, the mismatch between the description and the broad parameter set leaves the agent uncertain about how to use the tool correctly, especially given the unrelated parameters like city and zone.

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 description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the baseline for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't compensate for any gaps because none exist in 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 clearly states the tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment. This is a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, but the function is distinct enough.

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 scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. The agent receives no hint about when normalize-url is the right choice among the many URL-related tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the prompt is discarded, which is a useful trait, but it does not clarify that the nine parameters appear irrelevant to the output or that the tool likely returns a static template regardless of input. The schema descriptions hint at discarding for some parameters, but the tool description itself is silent on this, creating ambiguity.

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 short sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes: one defines the action, the other notes a behavioral quirk. It is front-loaded and economical, though it 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 annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of the parameters, the format of the returned template, or any prerequisites. It also fails to clarify whether the parameters are simply ignored, leaving the agent guessing about correct invocation. This is a critical gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 fully documents each parameter's apparent purpose. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline rule for high coverage. It does not compensate for the schema's vague 'discarded' notes, but it does not need to for a baseline score.

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: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is specific and unambiguous, though it lacks detail about the template's content or purpose. It does not differentiate from siblings, but the name and function are distinct enough from the URL/checking tools listed.

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 only states what it returns and that the prompt is discarded, but gives no context for selecting it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal that only the 'zone' parameter matters among the 9 declared parameters, nor that the other 8 (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, query) are discarded. An agent cannot tell which inputs actually affect the result, a significant transparency gap for a tool with 9 optional 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 single sentence is genuinely concise with zero wasted words. However, given the tool's complexity — 9 parameters where 8 are unrelated to the stated purpose — the brevity undermines usability. It is under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent encountering this tool would not know which parameter to populate or how it differs from utc-time. Critical call-information is missing.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not clarify that 'zone' is the operative parameter while the others are ignored. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 applies, but the description misses the chance to flag which parameter actually drives the tool.

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 purpose: return the current time for a named IANA timezone. It names a specific resource type (IANA timezone) and an implicit action (get current time). However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'utc-time' tool, leaving an agent to infer the relationship between them.

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 like utc-time or iana-zones. The description offers no context for selecting this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of when it is or isn't appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the parameters are mostly ignored, that the tool performs no side effects, or any edge cases. The description only states the output, leaving the agent unaware of how parameters like 'ref', 'url', or 'city' are handled (though schema hints they are discarded). 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 a single short sentence that essentially restates the tool name. It does not front-load any critical information beyond what the name implies, and the sentence does not earn its place by adding new value. It is concise but lacks substantive structure.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no context about how the parameters affect the result, what the return format is, or any prerequisites. An agent would be left guessing whether passing parameters matters. This is grossly incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, including notes like 'discarded after the shape check'. Per the calibration baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters and the description adds no extra semantic meaning. The description does not enrich parameter understanding.

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

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

The description 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states the tool returns the current UTC time. It is a specific, actionable statement, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'timezone' which might also deal with time. Still, it is not a tautology since it adds the word 'current' and 'UTC'.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'timezone'. No mention of scenarios where utc-time is preferred, nor any exclusions. The description is entirely silent on 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that all parameters except city are ignored and discarded. The schema descriptions mention 'discarded' for several params, but the tool description does not aggregate this, leaving the agent to infer that unrelated inputs have no effect.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core function. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could benefit from a brief note about the irrelevant parameters 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?

With 9 parameters, many unrelated to weather, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain why the other parameters exist, that they are discarded, or what the return format is. An agent might reasonably assume the tool handles URLs, JSON, etc., leading to misuse. The description fails to clarify the tool's actual scope and behavior.

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 description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as expected format or constraints for the city parameter. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles documentation, but the description does not enhance it.

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 a specific purpose: retrieving current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo. It is distinct from siblings like geo-hint, which likely deals with geolocation. However, it does not acknowledge the presence of 8 other parameters in the schema that are unrelated to weather, which slightly muddies the tool's scope.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as geo-hint or lib-docs-hint. It simply states the function without providing context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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 discloses one key behavior: 'Body discarded.' This tells the agent that the body is not returned, which is useful. However, it does not mention that many other parameters (ref, city, feed, etc.) are also discarded or that no disk access occurs. The schema descriptions partially cover this, but the description itself is sparse and omits most behavioral nuances.

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 (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information about the tool's broader scope and side effects. It is not appropriately sized because it fails to cover the tool's actual functionality for the majority of its parameters.

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

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

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only addresses the URL use case. It leaves the other 8 parameters entirely unmentioned, making it inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full capabilities. Even for the URL case, it does not describe the response format or any edge cases.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a small qualifier: 'public URL' implies the URL must be publicly accessible, which is not explicitly in the schema. But it does not elaborate on the other parameters, so it adds minimal semantic value 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 clear purpose: 'HTTP status and content type for a public URL.' This is a specific verb and resource, so an agent can infer what it does for the URL case. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, and it ignores the tool's other 8 parameters, so it is only partially complete.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts. An agent has no basis for choosing web-fetch over fetch-status or normalize-url.

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