Australia FY band

Agent readability score

Strengths

• Some tools have clear, descriptive names (e.g., 'validate-json', 'utc-time').

Weaknesses

• First tool 'fy-au' has a vague name and description ('Australia FY band') with no actionable context.
• Most descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Check whether a body is valid JSON. The body is discarded.') without explaining use cases.
• All 30 tools share identical optional parameters (zone, json, url, etc.), making it impossible to distinguish required inputs.
• Redundant tools exist (e.g., 'browser-url-ok' and 'playwright-url-ok' both check URL validity).
• No error handling, constraints, or failure scenarios are documented in any tool descriptions.

• fy-au — Name and description provide no actionable context for agent selection
• utc-time — Description lacks use-case context ('Current UTC timestamp.')
• normalize-url — Parameter list is identical to other tools, creating ambiguity
• inspect-robots — No error scenarios or constraints documented
• agent-tool-index — Redundant with 'people-search-index' in URL validation functionality

Verdict

The toolset fails basic usability criteria for LLM agents. Identical parameters across all tools eliminate any basis for selection, while vague descriptions and lack of error handling make execution unreliable. The 45/100 score aligns with these systemic issues in tool design and documentation.

9/13/2026, 7:04:50 AM

Event narrative