ChronoKey

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 conveys a read-only status check and mentions 'free,' but it does not describe the response format, possible side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. For a no-annotation tool, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 concise: 'Check server status (free).' It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every part adds value. The parenthetical 'free' provides useful context without bloating the description.

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 zero-parameter, simple health-check tool, the description is mostly complete: an agent knows what action to take and why. The absence of an output schema means the return value's exact shape is unspecified, but the core purpose is clear enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result reasonably.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none to explain. This is an appropriate non-issue for this 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check server status.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like text.structure, timestamp, and uuid, which operate in completely different domains. The parenthetical 'free' adds a useful cost qualifier without obscuring the core purpose.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this tool to check server status. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it, although the sibling tools are unrelated in function. A minimal level of implied usage is present, but no direct selection criteria are provided.

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?

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is deterministic and makes no external calls, which is critical for agent safety. Mentioning the cost adds transparency, though it does not discuss potential side effects, which are unnecessary for a pure extraction operation.

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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the additional details about determinism and cost are presented compactly, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 covers the purpose, output content (entity types), and operational characteristics (determinism, cost). Since there is no output schema, listing the entity types gives a reasonable picture of the return structure. No critical detail is missing for an agent to call the tool correctly, though an example or explicit return format would push it to a 5.

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 only parameter, text, is already documented in the schema with its max length. The description reinforces that the input is 'unstructured text' and lists the entity types it will extract, providing context about the function's behavior. However, it does not add new formatting or syntax details beyond the schema, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool extracts structured entities from text and enumerates the specific entity types (emails, URLs, phone numbers, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like health, timestamp, and uuid, which likely handle different text operations.

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 versus the sibling tools. It only explains what it does and its reliability/cost, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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?

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the monetary cost ($0.001 USDC), the output formats, and timezone/default behavior. The main non-obvious behavior—cost—is explicitly stated.

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 wasted words. The primary purpose and output formats are front-loaded, and the cost note is appended clearly at the end.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the necessary invocation context: formats, default timezone, and cost. A minor gap is the absence of an example response, but the named formats sufficiently convey the expected output.

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%, and the schema already documents that timezone is an optional IANA timezone name defaulting to UTC. The description merely repeats 'optional timezone' without adding new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise action and resource: 'Get the current time in multiple formats' and lists the specific formats (ISO 8601, Unix seconds, Unix milliseconds). This clearly distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like health, text.structure, and uuid.

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 usage context is clear: it returns the current time, optionally in a specified timezone, defaulting to UTC. It does not explicitly name when not to use it, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so no alternative routing is necessary.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the cost ($0.001 USDC) which is useful, and implies the operation is non-destructive (generating new data). However, it doesn't mention any randomness guarantees for v4 or time-based properties for v7, and it doesn't state whether the tool is idempotent or handles errors.

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 concise, two sentences, with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action (generate UUIDs) and quickly covers versions and cost. Every word adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose and cost. However, it might benefit from noting that the tool is deterministic (if it is) or mentioning any rate limits beyond the cost. But for a simple generator, this suffices.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, including enums for version and range for count. The description adds little beyond restating the purpose. It could clarify that count is the number per call and version is the format, but that's already in 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 clearly states the tool generates one or more UUIDs and specifies the supported versions (v4 and v7). This is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like 'timestamp' which generates timestamps, and 'health' which likely checks system status.

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 when to use this tool (when UUIDs are needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if 'text.structure' could be relevant for UUID formatting. It provides no guidance on version selection beyond naming them.

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