URL Normalize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful privacy guarantee: 'Page content is not stored.' However, it does not disclose whether the tool performs network fetches, handles redirects, requires authentication, or has rate limits, which are important given the URL-fetching implication.

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: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. Page content is not stored.' Both sentences earn their place, with the second adding a meaningful privacy-relevant behavioral note. No unnecessary wording or filler.

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

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

For a tool with 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, this description is under-specified. It does not explain the roles of `host`, `json`, and `zone`, does not describe the return value structure, and gives no selection guidance. An agent would likely misuse this tool when trying to validate JSON or resolve a timezone.

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, but the description only addresses the `url` parameter while the schema includes `host`, `json`, and `zone`. The description does not clarify how the other three parameters relate to the tool, and `host` is both described as an input and as something returned, which is confusing. This mismatch undermines the value the description could add.

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 and object: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is specific and informative. However, it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like normalize-url or status-catalog, and the generic title 'citation' adds little 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as normalize-url, status-catalog, validate-json, or timezone. The description simply states what it returns, with no exclusions, conditions, 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add one useful behavioral trait: 'No identifiers are retained,' which signals privacy behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is read-only, how inputs are handled, or what output 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?

The two sentences are compact and front-loaded: the first states the action and the second adds a privacy guarantee. There is no wasted wording, though the brevity does reflect a lack of substantive detail rather than being a model of efficient completeness.

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 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the classification result looks like, when each parameter should be provided, or how this tool relates to the sibling tools.

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 coverage with descriptions for url, host, json, and zone, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and does not explain how these four heterogeneous parameters relate to the 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 resource ('Show how this request is classified'), but 'this request' is vague and the meaning of 'classified' is never defined. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like validate-json or normalize-url, leaving the agent to guess what compatibility classification actually produces.

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 the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or context, so the agent cannot determine whether 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core splitting behavior and the absence of ownership data, but says nothing about accepted input forms, output shape, failure modes, or side effects; given the disparate json and zone parameters, an agent cannot reliably predict 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 a single sentence with the active verb and object front-loaded, and no filler. The qualifier 'without WHOIS or ownership data' earns its place by setting expectations about what the tool does not provide.

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, so an agent needs more contextual guidance than this one sentence provides. It does not indicate which parameter to pass, what the result looks like, or whether json and zone are relevant to hostname splitting, leaving invocation genuinely ambiguous.

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 descriptions for all four properties, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries parameter-level meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail and does not reconcile 'hostname' with the unrelated json and zone parameters.

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 concrete operation ('Split a hostname into labels') and a clear resource, so an agent knows what the tool does. It also adds a negative scope ('without WHOIS or ownership data'), though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like normalise-url.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any explicit exclusions or prerequisite conditions. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' hints at a limitation but does not tell the agent how to choose among the optional url, host, json, and zone parameters.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool relates to timezone names. It does not disclose what operations happen on the provided url, host, json, or zone values, whether anything is mutated, or what the output looks like. This is effectively no behavioral information.

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 conciseness. One vague sentence does not earn its place because it fails to communicate the tool's actual function or the roles of its four parameters.

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

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

The description is completely inadequate for a four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not explain how url, host, json, and zone are used, what operation is performed, or what the result will be. An agent cannot reliably select or call this tool based on the provided information.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema individually documents each parameter. However, the description adds zero parameter-level meaning and actually conflicts with the schema's broad parameter set by implying the tool is only about timezone names. The mismatch between the description and the actual parameters makes it harder, not easier, for an agent to understand how to use the tool.

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

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

The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' merely restates the tool name and gives no verb or resource. It does not match the input schema at all, which accepts url, host, json, and zone parameters, suggesting a much broader validation/normalization tool. The description is actively misleading about what the tool does.

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 siblings like timezone, utc-time, validate-json, or normalize-url. The description does not mention any of the actual parameters or provide selection criteria, leaving agents to guess which sibling handles which 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the scoped return ('group counts only') but says nothing about error behavior, rate llimits, or synchronous/asynchronous fetch behavior. The schema parameters (normalize, cite, validate, timezone) are never reconciled with the robots.txt fetch, creating a transparency gap.

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

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

The description is a single 10-word sentence with zero filler; the action and output constraint are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing a meaningful piece of 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?

A network-fetch tool with 4 seemingly unrelated optional parameters and no output schema needs far more detail: what 'group counts' look like, how inputs map to the fetch, and what happens on failure (404, invalid URL). The description explains none of this, so an agent cannot invoke the tool correctly despite 100% schema coverage.

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%, which raises the baseline to 3, but the individual parameter descriptions do not align with 'fetch a public robots.txt' — JSON to validate and IANA timezone name have no obvious role. The description adds no mapping between its function and url/host/json/zone, so an agent cannot determine which parameters actually affect the fetch.

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), resource (public robots.txt), and outcome (return group counts only), so it is clear in isolation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, and the input schema's parameter descriptions (normalize/cite/validate/timezone) describe a different function, which undermines the apparent clarity.

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, when not to, or which alternative to choose. The phrase 'public robots.txt' hints at a public-site use case but provides no exclusions or comparisons to 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?

The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating that 'Query and fragment are dropped,' which is not available in annotations. However, there are no annotations, and the description says nothing about how the other schema fields (host, json, zone) behave, whether they are ignored, or how invalid input is handled.

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 brief sentences, no filler, and the core output is front-loaded. Every word contributes a specific fact. This is exemplary conciseness.

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

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

The description is too sparse for a tool with four optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and a sibling list with overlapping URL-related tools. It does not explain when to provide host, json, or zone, nor what happens if multiple parameters are supplied. The agent cannot reliably know how to call this tool beyond the simple url-only case.

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 does add context about URL output components (origin, host, path) and dropped parts, but it does not explain the relationship or selection among the four optional parameters. It does not compensate for the ambiguity introduced by the unrelated-looking json and zone fields.

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 output: 'Return origin, host, and path.' It clearly identifies the resource being processed and what the result contains. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like domain-shape or citation, so it is clear but not fully distinctive.

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 siblings such as citation, domain-shape, or validate-json. It implies URL-focused use, but never states exclusions or alternatives. With four optional parameters and no context for selecting among them, the agent is left to guess the intended invocation.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It offers almost no behavioral context: no mention of output shape, side effects, sorting, pagination, or how parameters affect behavior. The only hint is that the resource is a 'short catalog', which suggests a read-only listing, but the description fails to disclose anything 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 seven words, front-loaded, and contains no fluff or repetition. Every word adds something about the catalog's scope. However, it is so sparse that it under-specifies the tool's purpose, which prevents a full 5.

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

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

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and its four optional parameters (url, host, json, zone) are semantically unrelated to 'HTTP status codes'. The description does not bridge that gap, explain return values, or indicate which parameters to supply. An agent cannot tell what calling this tool returns or how to use 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% — each of url, host, json, and zone has a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds zero parameter semantics and does not explain how these parameters relate to a status-code catalog (e.g., whether passing a URL filters the catalog). The schema carries the entire semantic weight.

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" is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool's name (status-catalog) with minimal clarification ('common HTTP status codes'). It lacks a verb describing what the tool does with the catalog, such as 'look up', 'list', or 'return'. It also does nothing to distinguish the tool from siblings like 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what triggers it, or which alternatives to prefer. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or criteria. With sibling tools available, an agent has no basis to determine when the status-catalog is the right choice over citation or compatibility.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only, current-time behavior and names the input domain, but it does not disclose output format, invalid-timezone handling, or why unrelated fields like url/host/json appear in the schema. No contradiction exists, but the transparency is minimal.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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

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

For a tool with no output schema and four optional parameters, one line is not enough. The description does not explain how the time is returned, whether zone is effectively required, or what roles the other schema fields play, leaving meaningful ambiguity for 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 each parameter is already documented at the schema level. The description does not add guidance about zone being the operative parameter or clarify the purpose of url, host, and json, but the high coverage keeps this dimension at 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 clearly identifies the resource (a named IANA timezone) and the behavior (getting the current time), and it is topically distinct from sibling tools like citation or validate-json. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'return', but the intended action 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 intended usage is implied: an agent needing the current time for a timezone should select this tool. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or whether alternatives exist, so the usage context is only implicitly conveyed.

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. It does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., ISO 8601 string), whether it accepts parameters, how timezone is handled, or any side effects. 'Current UTC timestamp' is not enough behavioral information for an agent to know the tool's exact output or limitations.

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 ('Current UTC timestamp.'), which is concise but likely under-specified. It front-loads the core idea but fails to earn its place because it omits necessary context like return format or parameter usage.

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 4 parameters (none required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. An agent cannot determine why the tool takes a url, host, json, or zone parameter when the description only mentions a timestamp.

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

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

The input schema has 4 parameters with full 100% schema description coverage, and the description adds no parameter information. Per the rubric baseline, with high coverage the score is 3. However, the parameters (url, host, json, zone) seem unrelated to 'UTC timestamp', and the description does not clarify how or whether these parameters affect the tool's behavior, which could mislead 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 'Current UTC timestamp' states the resource (UTC time) and a verb-like intent (fetch/return), but it does not clearly explain what the tool actually does beyond naming it. It does not distinguish it from siblings like citation or domain-shape, and the tool name 'utc-time' plus the description are nearly tautological.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given for the intended use case (e.g., checking current time, validating timezones, logging), and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

The description adds one useful behavioral detail: 'The body is discarded,' which signals a lack of persistence. But with no annotations and no mention of what happens on success/failure, whether a URL is fetched, or what the return value looks like, the behavioral burden is not fully met.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core operation and the additional sentence about discarding earns its place as a side-effect note, even if it largely repeats the schema.

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

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

For a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explicitly state which parameter provides the body, what the result of validation looks like, and whether `url`, `host`, and `zone` are irrelevant to this operation.

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, including the `json` parameter's meaning and its discard behavior. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond calling it a 'body,' which is vaguer than the schema's own wording.

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 target: 'Check whether a body is valid JSON.' This is a clear verb+resource pairing and the tool is naturally distinguished from its URL-related siblings. However, 'body' is slightly ambiguous because the schema includes a `json` parameter but the description never names it.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that this is for validating JSON syntax, with no help about when it should or should not be chosen over sibling tools.

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