ISO country AR

Agent readability score

Strengths

• Some tools have clear, specific functions (e.g., 'validate-json', 'geo-hint').
• Descriptions occasionally explain use cases (e.g., 'Check whether a URL can be opened').

Weaknesses

• Tool names are often vague or non-descriptive (e.g., 'cc-ar', 'agent-tool-index').
• Descriptions frequently fail to explain when to use the tool, not just what it does.
• All tools share identical, optional parameters with unclear semantics (e.g., 'feed', 'zone').
• High overlap between tools (e.g., 'browser-url-ok' vs. 'playwright-url-ok') creates ambiguity.
• No documentation of error handling, constraints, or failure scenarios.

• cc-ar — Name is cryptic and does not clearly indicate purpose.
• agent-tool-index — Description is overly complex and lacks clear use cases.
• normalize-url — Parameters include 'query' and 'ref' without clarifying their role in URL normalization.
• timezone — Description does not specify if it returns current time or timezone metadata.
• inspect-robots — No mention of error handling for invalid or non-existent robots.txt files.

Verdict

The toolset suffers from poor naming conventions, parameter ambiguity, and functional overlap, making it difficult for agents to select and use tools effectively. While some tools have clear purposes, the lack of differentiation and documentation significantly reduces usability.

9/13/2026, 1:28:36 AM

Event narrative

Server metrics remained stable with no changes in compliance or status.

Risk: low

Advice

Continue monitoring for consistency. No action required as all parameters stayed within expected ranges.