JSON Check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility; it adds a meaningful privacy guarantee ('Page content is not stored') and implies a read-only check. It does not disclose network behavior, side effects, or what happens on invalid URLs, but the stated behavior is honest and non-mutating.

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

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

Two short sentences, with the core function first and the privacy note second. 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 four parameters and no output schema, this description is incomplete: it only explains the URL-related behavior, leaving json and zone semantically disconnected and giving no return-structure guidance. The privacy note is useful but doesn't fill the gap.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond referencing a URL, and does not clarify the roles of host, json, and zone.

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 clear action ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status') and resource ('a URL'), and adds a distinguishing privacy note. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools such as normalize-url or validate-json, and the schema's extra parameters (json, zone) are unaddressed.

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 indication of when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from the name and schema 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a concrete behavioral trait ('No identifiers are retained'), which is valuable for privacy-sensitive inputs. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens to the inputs, whether external calls are made, or what response the agent should expect.

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

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

Two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the privacy statement earns its place. Nothing is redundant or wordy, even though the content is sparse in substance.

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

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

The tool has four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description never explains what the classification output looks like, what categories exist, or what the tool actually evaluates. An agent cannot predict the result of the call or confidently interpret the response.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents url, host, json, and zone. The description's phrase 'this request' loosely groups the parameters, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema about how each parameter is used or how they combine into a classification.

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

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

The description states a verb and object ('Show how this request is classified') but leaves the key meaning vague: what 'this request' refers to, what classification categories exist, and how the tool name 'compatibility' relates. It is not a tautology, but it does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like validate-json or citation.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mentions of alternatives. The privacy note hints that it may be safe for sensitive input, but that is not enough to route an agent to the right tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a useful limitation — the tool is purely syntactic and returns no WHOIS or ownership information — which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose error behavior, whether the operation is pure, output structure, or handling of invalid hostnames.

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

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

A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and the key limitation, earning every word. There is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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

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

The tool has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only explains hostname splitting. It does not clarify which parameters are used, why the other parameters exist, what the return value looks like, or edge-case behavior. An agent is left guessing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, such as clarifying that 'host' is the primary input or how 'url', 'json', and 'zone' relate to the split operation. It neither hurts nor meaningfully improves on 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 specific verb ('split'), a specific resource ('hostname'), and a precise result ('into labels'). It also explicitly excludes WHOIS/ownership data, which distinguishes it from potential domain-data tools. Even without naming siblings, the scope is 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?

The description implies the tool is for hostname label extraction but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions beyond the WHOIS/ownership note. Sibling names are effectively unusable as context, and no alternative tool is named.

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 provides none: no return type, no side effects, no indication of what gets discarded, and no mention of whether the url, host, or json parameters are even relevant to this tool. The description reads as a topic label rather than an explanation of tool 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 definition is eight words long, but that is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. An action-first sentence or brief structured explanation of what the tool returns and which parameters apply would be far more valuable than this minimal fragment.

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

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

For a tool with four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It fails to state what the tool returns, which parameters are relevant, or how it relates to the sibling clock/date tools. An agent cannot reliably decide to call this tool or construct a 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter information in the description. However, the description does not connect the 'zone' parameter to the tool's purpose, and parameters like url, host, and json appear unrelated to IANA zones, creating ambiguity that the description fails to resolve.

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

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

The description is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement: 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls.' It indicates the subject area but never states what the tool actually does, such as returning a list, validating a zone, or providing a lookup. It also does little to distinguish this tool from siblings like timezone or utc-time.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for clock calls' is a faint contextual hint, but it does not name sibling tools, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent here instead of to timezone, utc-time, or another related tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only says it fetches a public file and returns counts. It does not explain failure behavior, network assumptions, rate limits, or what 'group counts' means. It also conflicts implicitly with the schema by ignoring the json and zone 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the core scoping phrase 'group counts only' is placed at the end for emphasis.

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

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

The tool has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must do more. It does not explain how the parameters relate to fetching a robots.txt, which parameter should be supplied, or what shape the returned group counts take.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning and, in fact, ignores three of the four parameters, but the schema itself already documents each one.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('public robots.txt') and further narrows the behavior with 'return group counts only.' It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like citation or validate-json, so it just misses the top score.

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 its siblings, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. An agent must infer that this is for robots.txt inspection rather than being told.

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 burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it returns only origin/host/path and deliberately drops query and fragment components. However, it does not disclose error behavior, requirements on the URL, or what happens when the other parameters are provided, so transparency is partial.

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

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main behavior and immediately followed by the key transformation detail. Every word earns its place; there is no wasted phrasing.

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?

Despite the schema documenting each parameter, the description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. It only explains URL normalization and ignores the 'host', 'json', and 'zone' modes entirely, so an agent could easily miss alternative valid invocations or misuse 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value for the 'url' parameter by clarifying the normalization behavior, but it does not explain how 'host', 'json', or 'zone' relate to the stated purpose, leaving the multi-mode nature of the tool ambiguous.

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 verb ('Return'), resource ('URL'), and scope ('origin, host, and path') while also noting that query and fragment are dropped. It does not name or differentiate against sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5, but the core behavior is 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?

The use case is implied: use this tool when you need the origin, host, and path of a URL with query/fragment removed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the decision.

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 reveals nothing about side effects, return values, side effects, or how inputs like url, host, json, and zone are used. An agent cannot predict what happens when invoking this tool.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise effectiveness. No sentence explains the tool's purpose beyond restating the name, leaving the agent with no actionable 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?

The tool has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain how these parameters relate to the stated catalog purpose. An agent cannot determine what a correct invocation looks like or what the tool returns, making the definition inadequate for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter individually. The description adds no semantic connection between these parameters and the catalog of HTTP status codes, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema covers all parameter meanings.

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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' merely restates the tool name 'status-catalog' and provides no action verb or functional outcome. It does not explain what an agent is supposed to do with this tool, nor does it differentiate it from siblings such as citation or validate-json.

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

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

The description contains no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like citation, compatibility, normalize-url, and validate-json exist, but no conditions or exclusions are given to help route the agent correctly.

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 states the tool's function. It does not disclose behavior for invalid zone names, whether the result includes DST/offset, or any output format expectations.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a confusing 4-parameter schema, the description is too minimal. It does not specify the return shape, error behavior, or that 'zone' is the only applicable input.

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 schema contains url, host, and json parameters that are unrelated to a timezone lookup. The description references only 'IANA timezone' and does not clarify that the other three parameters should be ignored, leaving an agent uncertain which arguments are valid.

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 and resource: 'Current time' + 'named IANA timezone.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like normalize-url or validate-json, which have entirely different purposes.

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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention that only the 'zone' parameter is relevant. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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, and it reveals nothing. It does not mention whether the tool reads system time, whether parameters are ignored or used, what format the timestamp is returned in, or whether any side effects occur.

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 but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single four-word phrase provides no structural or semantic value beyond the tool name.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is completely inadequate. It leaves essential questions unanswered: which parameters are relevant, what the return format is, and how the tool relates to its siblings.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, there is a glaring mismatch: the parameters (url, host, json, zone) have no obvious relation to 'Current UTC timestamp'. Only zone plausibly connects to time handling. The description adds no clarification about how or whether these parameters affect the result, leaving the agent to guess.

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' restates the tool name without adding a verb or clarifying what the tool actually does. It implies the tool returns the current time, but the resource is only implied, not stated. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools like citation or compatibility, which appear to be unrelated URL-focused 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?

The description provides no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated. An agent receives zero context for deciding between utc-time and the 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, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the input body is discarded, which is useful, but it never states what the tool returns, how invalid JSON is signaled, or whether any other side effects occur.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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

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

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps. An agent cannot tell whether the tool returns a boolean, throws on invalid JSON, or which parameters are actually used, making the description incomplete for confident 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema adequately describes the 'json' parameter, but the description itself adds no parameter-level guidance. It also fails to clarify that the other three schema parameters, 'url', 'host', and 'zone', appear irrelevant to this tool, potentially confusing an agent.

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 text is valid JSON', which clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from all listed siblings. The additional note about the body being discarded reinforces the focused 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 clearly implies its use case: when an agent needs to determine whether a given text is valid JSON. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools overlap with this functionality, so the context is sufficient.

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