CRLF pair count, text discarded

Agent readability score

Strengths

• Some tools have descriptive names (e.g., 'validate-json', 'normalize-url')
• The 'agent-tool-index' provides detailed contextual information in its description

Weaknesses

• Most tool names are vague or ambiguous (e.g., 'think-steps', 'search-query-len')
• All parameters are optional with no required fields indicated
• 30+ tools share identical parameter lists with no differentiation
• No error handling or constraint documentation
• Descriptions only state functionality, not usage scenarios

• crlf-ok — Name doesn't clarify purpose beyond CRLF counting
• utc-time — No context for when this timestamp would be needed
• timezone — Ambiguous without knowing IANA zone requirements
• validate-json — No indication of validation rules or formats
• normalize-url — Unclear what 'origin' and 'host' definitions imply
• inspect-robots — No guidance on robots.txt parsing specifics
• domain-shape — Vague about label splitting criteria
• citation — No explanation of HTTP status classification
• compatibility — Unclear what classification criteria are used
• status-catalog — No definition of 'common' HTTP status codes

Verdict

The toolset fails basic agent usability requirements with ambiguous naming, missing required parameters, and no usage context. The identical parameter lists across 30+ tools create severe ambiguity, while the lack of error handling makes the system unpredictable in real-world scenarios.

9/13/2026, 4:48:39 AM

Event narrative