Yards to meters

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 'pay-per-call' (hinting at cost) and 'Task text discarded' (hinting at data handling), but it does not disclose potential side effects, external calls, or failure modes. The behavior is only partially transparent.

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 succinct, consisting of two short sentences. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easy to scan, with the core purpose and key behavior stated clearly without verbosity.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain what 'connection methods' are or how they are returned. It also fails to clarify how the 9 parameters interact with the finding logic, leaving significant ambiguity about expected inputs and outputs. The tool appears to be a catch-all, but the description lacks completeness for such a broad role.

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 9 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but many are cryptic or note that values are 'discarded' (e.g., ref, city, json). This adds some meaning (e.g., city is a hint), but it does not clarify how parameters directly influence the gateway selection. The descriptions are sufficient to avoid misuse but not fully informative.

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: finding a public pay-per-call tool gateway for tasks like weather, search, scrape, or voice. It distinguishes itself from specific sibling tools (e.g., weather-hint, search-query-len) by indicating this is a higher-level discovery tool, though it could be more precise about the exact 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 implies when to use the tool ('for a task such as...') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it relates to alternative approaches (e.g., directly calling a specific tool). It gives some context but lacks clear exclusions or decision guidance.

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 present, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no browser is launched and some parameters are discarded or involve no disk access, but it does not clarify network effects, validation behavior, or why such disparate parameters are accepted.

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 easy to read, with no redundant prose. It loses some structure points because the terse text contradicts the breadth of the input schema, but as a standalone description it is well-formed.

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 nine optional parameters spanning URLs, git refs, timezones, JSON, file paths, and search text, plus no output schema, the description is far too thin to give an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly or interpret its result.

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 confusingly heterogeneous (normalize/cite, shape check, length check, no disk access) and do not coherently explain how each field relates to checking whether a URL can be opened. This adds more confusion than semantic value.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('check whether a URL can be opened') but the input schema exposes nine unrelated optional fields (ref, city, json, zone, query, etc.), making the tool's actual purpose ambiguous and hard to distinguish from siblings like fetch-status or playwright-url-ok.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided; the description does not mention alternatives or explain when this tool should be preferred over related tools. The only extra note ('No browser is launched') is a behavioral constraint, not usage direction.

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

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

The description and parameter descriptions repeatedly state that inputs are 'discarded,' which is somewhat transparent about ignoring inputs. However, it never explains what the tool actually returns or how 'evaluate' is performed if the expression is discarded.

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 main description is short, but the schema is padded with nine irrelevant parameters all marked as 'discarded.' This creates a bloated and confusing structure rather than a focused, useful tool definition.

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?

There is no output schema, no return-value description, no error or side-effect information, and no explanation of how the 'arithmetic evaluation' relates to the provided parameters. The tool as described is contextually incomplete.

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%, all nine parameters are optional strings with descriptions unrelated to arithmetic (e.g., 'Git ref name,' 'HTTPS URL,' 'City name'), and each is said to be discarded. There is no parameter for the expression the tool claims to evaluate.

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 says 'Evaluate a+b style arithmetic,' but the input schema contains no arithmetic expression parameter. Instead, all nine optional parameters are described as discarded, making the stated purpose impossible to actually fulfill.

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 for when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description does not mention related tools, conditions, or context in which calc-eval should be chosen.

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

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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the URL is fetched, what side effects occur, or how errors are handled, leaving important behavioral aspects unclear.

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, clearly stating the primary behavior in the first sentence and adding a brief non-storage note in the second. There is no unnecessary wording.

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 nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected request shape, which parameters are relevant, what the returned host/scheme/status values look like, or how the unrelated schema fields fit into the tool's 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?

While the schema has descriptions for all parameters, the tool description only adds meaning for 'url'. Several parameters like city, zone, query, and ref appear unrelated to the stated purpose, and the description does not clarify how or when they should be 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 states a specific outcome: return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. It is mostly clear, but the broad optional schema with unrelated fields like city, zone, and query muddies the tool's actual 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?

The description does not explain when to use this tool versus siblings like fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The only hint is 'Page content is not stored', which implies a metadata-only use, but no explicit guidance or alternatives are given.

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 burden of explaining side effects, data handling, or other behaviors. The only behavioral note is 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy statement but does not clarify the actual processing, side effects, or what happens to the input beyond that.

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 free of unnecessary words, which is structurally concise. However, the primary sentence is so vague that it does not effectively communicate the tool's purpose, and the second sentence is a tangential privacy note. While not verbose, it fails to be usefully clear.

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 and no output schema, making it inherently complex. The description is far too sparse to explain what kinds of inputs are compatible, what 'classified' means, what the tool returns, or how it relates to the sibling tools. This is a significant gap that prevents an agent from using the tool 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 input schema covers all 9 parameters with individual descriptions, so the schema itself provides semantic hints. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters relate to the classification task, leaving the agent to infer from the schema descriptions alone. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely vague and does not specify what kind of classification is performed, on what resource, or what the output would be. It fails to name a concrete action or object, making it impossible to understand the tool's purpose without additional context.

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 many sibling tools. It does not mention any alternatives, criteria, or conditions that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool instead of others.

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 mentions the basic behavior and a negative. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how invalid hostnames are handled, what the output structure looks like, or that several schema parameters appear to be ignored/discarded.

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, focused sentence with no redundant wording. The negative clause adds valuable information without bloating the text.

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

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

The tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain the expected input format, the output shape, or how to handle the extra parameters. This is insufficient context for an agent to confidently call 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?

Although every parameter has a schema description, many are unrelated to splitting a hostname (e.g., city, feed, zone, query). The tool description does not map the 'hostname' concept to the appropriate parameter or explain why the other parameters exist, leaving agents uncertain about which inputs are actually relevant.

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 core operation: splitting a hostname into labels. It also adds a useful negative constraint ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), which helps distinguish it from ownership/WHOIS tools. However, it does not clarify why the input schema contains many unrelated optional parameters.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related siblings like normalize-url or other shape tools. There is no mention of preferred input type, typical use cases, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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 disclosing behavior. It only states the action and output, but omits important aspects like network side effects, redirect handling, error behavior, or response format.

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 with no filler or redundant wording. It communicates the core operation efficiently.

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 with no required fields and no output schema. The description does not explain which parameter is needed in practice, what 'status' means, or how the unrelated schema parameters should be handled. This creates significant ambiguity for correct 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 parameter descriptions are misleading and inconsistent with the tool purpose. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which conflicts with fetching status. Multiple other parameters are described as 'discarded', leaving ambiguity about which parameters are actually 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 clearly states the verb (HEAD), the resource (public URL), and the output (status only). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like web-fetch or browser-url-ok.

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 alternatives such as web-fetch, browser-url-ok, or status-catalog. The description does not mention any selection criteria 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 disclose behavior, but it only says 'Path discarded.' It doesn't state what the tool returns, whether it validates the URL's shape, or how it handles the other eight parameters in the schema. The mismatch between the tool name (Figma-specific) and the generic schema parameters adds confusion.

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 at one sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded key details like output or purpose. While brevity is good, it omits critical information.

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 annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does with the other parameters, what the output shape is, or any side effects. An agent would be lost on how 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?

The schema describes all 9 parameters, but the description adds no value—it doesn't clarify which parameter is the Figma URL, nor does it explain the role of the other parameters. The schema's description for 'url' says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' which conflicts with the tool's Figma focus. The description fails to bridge this gap.

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 resource (Figma file URL) and a verb (parse), but 'parse' is vague—it doesn't say whether it validates, extracts, or normalizes. It also doesn't distinguish itself from sibling URL tools like browser-url-ok or normalize-url. The phrase 'Path discarded' hints at a behavior but leaves the core purpose unclear.

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. There is no mention of which sibling tools to prefer, nor any exclusions. An agent cannot decide whether to pick this over normalize-url or domain-shape based on the description.

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 disclosed behavioral trait is 'No disk access.' With no annotations provided, the description does not cover return value, error behavior, or what makes a path 'safe,' leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary wording, though it may be too sparse for full clarity.

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

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

Given there is no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to use reliably. It does not specify the return type, the criteria for 'safe,' or failure conditions.

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 parameters have individual descriptions, but the tool-level description does not connect them to the path-checking purpose. Many parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'IANA timezone name') appear unrelated, and the all-optional schema is confusing.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('check') and the resource ('path'), and adds a useful behavioral constraint ('No disk access'). However, the phrase 'looks safe' is somewhat vague without defining what safety means.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The 'No disk access' note offers an implicit safe-to-call hint, but it does not explain selection criteria 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?

With no annotations, the description must explain side effects and behavior, but it only states that coordinates come 'via Open-Meteo.' It does not disclose whether an external network call is made, what failures may occur, or what the tool actually returns beyond a vague phrase.

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, but it is too terse to be useful. It earns some credit for being short, but the lack of essential operational detail undermines the value of that brevity.

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

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

With no output schema and nine optional parameters, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to call the tool, what response shape to expect, which parameters are relevant, or how errors are handled.

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 does not connect any of the nine parameters to the stated purpose. The schema includes many seemingly unrelated optional fields with odd 'discarded' descriptions, and there is no indication whether city, query, or something else supplies the place name.

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 communicates that the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, but it lacks a clear verb and does not specify which input identifies the place. It is more informative than a tautology but still vague about the actual operation.

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 instead of related siblings like weather-hint or timezone. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving selection decisions unsupported.

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 side effects, read-only behavior, error behavior, or return values. For a pure parsing tool this is minimal but not explicit.

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, but it omits essential operational details. The structure is acceptable, yet the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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

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

No output schema, return format, required parameters, or examples are provided. The mismatch between the description and the nine optional generic parameters leaves an agent unable to reliably invoke 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?

Although every parameter has a description, the descriptions are generic and mostly irrelevant to parsing GitHub URLs (e.g., city, feed, timezone, query). It is unclear which parameter should contain the GitHub URL, and no parameter is required.

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?

Description clearly states the tool parses owner and repo from a GitHub URL, using a specific verb and resource, and is distinguishable from sibling URL tools. However, the schema's many unrelated optional parameters create ambiguity about the actual operation.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as normalize-url, domain-shape, or figma-url-shape. Does not mention input expectations or conditions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that titles are discarded, but it does not disclose that all 9 input parameters are effectively ignored or that the return value is just a count. The parameter descriptions in the schema mention 'discarded', but the tool description itself does not explain this behavior, leaving important behavioral 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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the main action. It is concise and free of fluff, earning a high score for conciseness. However, it is under-specified, which slightly detracts from structure—but that is evaluated in other dimensions.

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 lacks critical information: there is no mention of the return format (e.g., integer count, JSON), no explanation of why the parameters exist, and no caveats about usage. An agent would not know how to interpret the result or whether any of the parameters matter. This is incomplete for effective 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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptive text for each parameter, but the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The descriptions of parameters like 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded' are generic and unrelated to the stated purpose. The tool description does not clarify that these parameters are placeholders and not used for the count, so it fails to add any contextual value.

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: 'Count current Hacker News front-page stories.' This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'fetch-status' or 'web-fetch'. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what it does not do (titles are discarded).

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. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or why a user might choose this over 'fetch-status' or 'web-fetch'. The agent is left without context to decide if this is the right tool for a given task.

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 gives no information about side effects, return values, or operational constraints. The tool takes 9 parameters with seemingly unrelated purposes (e.g., 'ref' discarded after shape check, 'json' validated, 'path' checked with no disk access), yet the description does not explain any of this behavior. This is a critical gap for a tool with such a vague 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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently front-loaded. It does not convey the essential information an agent needs, making the brevity a liability rather than a strength. The structure offers no meaningful context or prioritization.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's core function, how parameters are used, or what the result will look like. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided description.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptive text. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters relate to timezone names or the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation, though the description's vagueness prevents it from adding value.

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 says 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' but does not specify a verb or clear action. It reads as a noun phrase, not a tool purpose. It does not clarify whether the tool validates, lists, or converts timezone names, and it fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The schema implies a general-purpose parameter set (ref, url, city, etc.) that further obscures the tool's actual 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. The description never mentions any sibling tools, conditions, or exclusions. An agent would have no way to decide between this and 'timezone', 'utc-time', or 'geo-hint' based on the description alone.

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 side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior are disclosed. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but remains silent on all behavioral aspects.

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, well-formed sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the core functionality.

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 function is stated, but the tool has 9 parameters and the description does not explain which are relevant or how they relate to the operation. There is no output schema, leaving the expected result shape unclear.

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 all 9 parameters have descriptions, they are generic and misaligned with the tool's purpose (e.g., 'url' described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'). They do not clarify how each parameter is used for fetching robots.txt, thus adding confusion rather than meaning.

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 specific action (fetch), the resource (public robots.txt), and the output (group counts only). It is concise and unambiguous.

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 compare with sibling tools or indicate specific scenarios for use.

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 says 'Key discarded', implying the input is not returned, but it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error message) or any side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full responsibility, and this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is very brief ('Check a Jira issue key shape. Key discarded.'), which is concise but lacks essential details. It does not structure information about input, output, or usage, so the brevity works against clarity rather than helping it.

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 complexity of 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent has no way to know what input to provide, what constitutes a valid request, or what response to expect. The description offers no context to resolve the mismatch between the tool name and the 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 descriptions for all 9 parameters are generic placeholders (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check', 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') and none are specifically identified as a Jira issue key. The descriptions read like a copy-paste from a generic shape checker, providing no meaningful guidance on which parameter to use or how they relate 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 verb 'Check' and resource 'Jira issue key shape', but it fails to specify which input parameter holds the key, making the purpose ambiguous. The tool's name suggests a specific input, but the parameter list includes unrelated fields like url, city, and host, so an agent cannot determine what to pass.

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 sibling shape-checking tools (e.g., domain-shape, github-repo-shape). It does not mention expected key format, edge cases, or alternatives. The description is a single sentence with no 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; the description discloses 'Body discarded' and parameter descriptions mention side-effect-free checks, but there is no explicit statement about output, errors, or general side 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?

One clear, front-loaded sentence; no filler 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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no usage examples, the description is too sparse to determine what to pass and what will be returned.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100%), so no additional meaning is strictly needed; however, the tool-level description does not explain how parameters relate to the stated HTTP-status purpose.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('HTTP status') but is incomplete/misleading because the input schema exposes nine unrelated optional parameters (city, zone, json, query, etc.) and no indication of how they relate to the stated 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 on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url, nor how to choose among the many optional inputs.

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 takes the full burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that values are discarded, which is a useful trait, but it does not state what is returned, whether invalid input raises errors, or that the JSON object being counted is the set of provided arguments. This is a major gap for a tool with no other behavioral metadata.

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: two short sentences with no waste. 'Values are discarded' is a useful behavioral note. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward utility tool, though the content could be improved without bloating.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this is incomplete. The description does not explain what the input 'JSON object' refers to (e.g., the set of input properties) or what the count is used for, forcing an agent to infer too much for a reliable selection and 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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high coverage. Nothing about the 'JSON object' mapping to the parameters is clarified.

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 counts keys in a JSON object, which is a specific verb and resource. It is clear but does not distinguish itself from sibling tools (e.g., state that it operates on the memory/input object or contrast with validate-json), so it does not reach the highest tier.

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 instead of alternatives. The description only defines the function, leaving the selection context completely unspecified. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or mentions of sibling 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?

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions output behavior. It does not disclose side effects, error handling, or how the numerous unrelated parameters are treated.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and then states an important detail about query and fragment handling.

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 complex nine-parameter schema and lack of an output schema, the description omits the output shape, error behavior, and the role of the extra parameters, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 contains nine optional parameters with descriptions that appear unrelated to URL normalization (e.g., zone, json, city, query). The tool description does not clarify which parameters are relevant, and the 'query' parameter description conflicts with the notion of URL query dropping.

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 that the tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment. It is specific about the main action but does not differentiate it from related sibling URL tools.

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 browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or other URL-related sibling 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'No browser is launched,' which is a negative constraint, but it does not explain whether a network request occurs, what validation is performed, or any side effects. This leaves the agent uninformed about the tool's actual behavior.

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

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

The description is one short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks any structural breakdown or additional context, making it insufficiently informative 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?

This tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must provide comprehensive context. It does none of that—it gives a one-line vague statement that fails to explain the tool's behavior, parameter relationships, or return values. This is completely inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the tool description adds no semantic context for the parameters. It fails to explain why a URL-open check would need parameters like 'city', 'zone', 'json', or 'path', and the schema descriptions alone do not clarify their role in this tool's purpose. The description does not compensate for the apparent 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 states a specific action ('Check whether a URL can be opened') and a resource (URL), which is better than a tautology. However, it is vague about what 'opened' means (e.g., does it perform a network request or just validate format?) and does not differentiate it from siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status. The many unrelated parameters further cloud the actual 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser-url-ok or fetch-status. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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 explaining behavior. It only states that the query is discarded, implying no side effects, but it does not explain return behavior, failure modes, or what happens if the query is absent or empty.

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 contains no filler. It communicates the primary action and the disposition of the input in just two short sentences.

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 under-specified for the actual context. It does not state what the tool returns, whether the query parameter is required, how to handle multiple provided parameters, or what edge cases exist. With no output schema and nine optional parameters, an agent cannot reliably know the full contract.

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 already provides 100% parameter descriptions, including explicit 'discarded' notes, so the tool description adds little additional meaning. The schema descriptions are somewhat inconsistent with the stated single-purpose tool, but they do clarify that most parameters are ignored.

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 counts characters in a search query and that the query is discarded afterward. The core purpose is identifiable, though the input schema includes many unrelated optional parameters that create some ambiguity about what exactly is being measured.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is inferable from the name and description, but the description does not mention conditions, edge cases, or how it differs from sibling tools like validation or shape-checking 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?

No annotations are present and the description does not disclose read-only behavior, side effects, or return characteristics. Some parameter descriptions mention 'discarded', but tool-level behavior remains 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 short, but the brevity comes at the cost of necessary information. It does not explain the relationship between the parameters and the stated purpose, so it is terse without being clear.

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?

There is no output schema, no description of return values, no examples, and no error handling details. With nine optional parameters and no explanation of how they affect results, the description is far from complete enough 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 every parameter has a schema description, none of the nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are connected to the stated purpose of an HTTP status code catalog. The tool description adds no meaning that links parameters to functionality.

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 names a domain ('common HTTP status codes') but uses no verb and does not state what action is performed. The parameter list is entirely unrelated to HTTP status codes, making the purpose unclear and potentially 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, no context for typical invocation, and no mention of expected inputs or outputs. The description provides no actionable usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Prompt discarded,' hinting that input is ignored, but it doesn't clarify what the template contains, whether parameters affect it, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with 9 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?

It is a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Key information about the template and parameter usage is missing, so brevity is not a virtue here.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no context. It doesn't explain the purpose of the parameters, the nature of the template, or how the tool should be invoked. This is severely inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that and doesn't mention any parameters at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents each parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is clear enough to know the tool produces a template, and none of the sibling tools appear to do the same, so it stands apart without needing an explicit contrast.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description gives no context, no prerequisites, and no mention of situations where it is appropriate or inappropriate.

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 provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. The description is neutral and does not mislead, but it does not clarify its behavior beyond the basic function.

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, consisting of a single sentence. It is well-structured and to the point, though it omits details 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?

Given the large set of sibling tools, this description is too minimal. It does not explain the extra parameters or clarify that only 'zone' is used, leaving an agent to guess which parameters apply. The lack of output schema also leaves the response format unspecified.

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 nine parameters, but only 'zone' is relevant to the tool's purpose. The remaining parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, query) have descriptions that appear copied from other tools and are unrelated to timezone lookups, making the schema confusing and 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: returning the current time in a named IANA timezone. It is specific and unambiguous, easily distinguishing it from other tools like 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternative tools such as utc-time or geo-hint. It lacks any context on use cases or criteria for selection.

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 does not disclose that all input parameters appear to be ignored or discarded, which is a notable behavioral gap given the nine optional parameters in the schema.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at four words, which is appropriate for a trivial utility. While short, it still communicates the core purpose effectively without unnecessary 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 description omits essential context: it does not mention that the parameters are ignored, does not specify the return format (e.g., ISO 8601), and provides no indication of whether the tool is read-only or side-effect-free. Given the confusing parameter list, the description is not complete enough for an agent to use confidently.

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 nine optional parameters whose descriptions indicate they are 'discarded' or irrelevant to the tool's purpose, but the description does not explain why they exist or how they relate to 'utc-time'. This leaves the parameter list confusing and effectively meaningless for this 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 'Current UTC timestamp' clearly states what the tool returns, which is sufficient for a simple time utility. It is less explicit than a verb-driven phrase, but it distinguishes the tool from timezone-related siblings like 'timezone' and 'iana-zones'.

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 instead of alternatives such as 'timezone' or 'iana-zones'. The description implies a simple current-time use case, but it does not explicitly state conditions 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?

The description only notes that 'The body is discarded,' implying non-destructive behavior. With no annotations, this is insufficient—it does not clarify that only the 'json' parameter is relevant and others are ignored, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication, or error handling. The agent lacks crucial 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 concise (one sentence) but poorly structured: it does not front-load the essential parameter ('json') or provide any prioritization. It is short but not helpful, failing to guide the agent on what matters most.

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 and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain which parameter to pass, what the expected input format is, or what the return value represents (e.g., boolean, error). An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented, giving a baseline of 3. However, the description introduces ambiguity by using 'body' instead of the actual 'json' parameter, and does not add any value beyond the schema—it actively confuses the mapping. Thus, it falls below baseline.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') with a specific resource (JSON validity). However, the term 'body' is ambiguous and does not map to any parameter in the schema (which has 'json'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning JSON, but lacks specificity about which input to use.

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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The single-sentence description provides no usage direction, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the basic operation, without saying that the other eight schema parameters appear irrelevant or discarded, how the response is structured, or whether external network access is required.

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, front-loaded, and free of filler. It is slightly too terse for a 9-parameter tool, but as a prose summary it is efficiently written.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and nine optional input parameters, the description is not complete enough to call correctly. It does not state which parameter to use, how unrelated parameters behave, or what the response contains.

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 City and weather context but does not compensate for the many irrelevant-looking parameters; the schema itself is doing the semantic heavy lifting.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource: returning the current temperature for a city, with the provider named (Open-Meteo). This is enough to be understood on its own, but the description does not differentiate it from sibling tools and the 9-parameter schema makes the actual scope somewhat unclear.

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 implies the tool is for fetching a city's current temperature, but it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and does not reference any sibling tool as an alternative. The agent must infer when to use it and which parameter matters.

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 discloses that the body is discarded, which is a useful behavioral note, and indicates it works on public URLs only. However, it does not mention timeouts, redirects, error handling, or what happens with non-HTTP URLs, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 concise sentences with no filler, front-loading the primary purpose. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 and no output schema, and the description is very minimal. It only mentions URL fetching, but the schema includes parameters for city, zone, json, path, etc., which are not explained in the description. This leaves the agent confused about how to use the tool for non-URL inputs and what the tool actually does with them. Given the complexity of the parameter set, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 already describes all 9 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies; the description does not clarify which parameter is primary or how the many parameters relate to the stated purpose of fetching a URL, which is a slight gap given the large parameter count.

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: fetching a public URL and reporting HTTP status and content type, with the body discarded. It is specific about the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like fetch-status, which might do the same. The body-discard note adds a distinguishing detail.

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 instead of alternatives such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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 present, the description should carry the full behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral detail provided is that the title is 'discarded after the call,' which is a privacy note, but it omits whether the tool makes network requests, whether it is read-only, what it returns, or how failures surface. The phrase 'Title discarded' also conflicts with the lack of a title parameter, causing 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, which earns points. But it fails to earn its place by not explaining the essential mechanics needed for invocation. Given the massive mismatch between title and the actual schema, this brevity is under-informativeness rather than clean conciseness, deserving a middle score.

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

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

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and an ambiguous title-schema mapping, the description is critically incomplete. There is no explanation of how to pass a Wikipedia title, what type of return to expect, or which parameter is required/suitable for the intended operation. This tool is unusable without additional context.

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

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

Although the input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, the tool description adds no semantic meaning that connects the parameters to a Wikipedia title check. The claimed 'title' is not present in the schema, and the description does not explain how any of the nine parameters relate to the action. This is a significant gap beyond the structured schema, so the baseline of 3 is reduced.

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: checking whether a Wikipedia title exists. However, there is no 'title' parameter in the input schema, and the provided parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) do not obviously map to a Wikipedia title. This creates a clear mismatch between what the description says the tool does and how it can be invoked.

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. There is no mention of conditions favoring this tool, no exclusions, and no comparisons to siblings such as browser-url-ok or file-path-ok. The presence of 'ok' style sibling tools further emphasizes the need for usage differentiation, which is completely absent.

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 explaining behavior, but it only states a unit conversion. It does not disclose what happens with the nine unrelated schema parameters, whether any are used, or what the output format is.

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, but it is under-specified and lacks a clear structure or verb. It provides no information about parameters, output, or usage context, so brevity comes at the expense of usefulness.

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 mismatch between a simple conversion intent and a complex, unrelated parameter schema, the description is far from complete. It leaves fundamental questions unanswered, such as how to supply the yards value and what result is returned.

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 has 100% description coverage, all parameters are semantically unrelated to yards-to-meters conversion (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query). The description adds no meaning to these parameters and does not explain which parameter, if any, represents the yards value.

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 'Yards to meters' clearly identifies a conversion intent and matches the tool name yd-to-m. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb-driven statement, and it does not distinguish this tool from related siblings like calc-eval.

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 mention of prerequisites or expected inputs. The description gives no indication of how a caller should invoke the conversion.

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