timezone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default behavior for missing time and the timezone conversion action, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is adequate for a simple conversion tool but misses deeper behavioral traits.

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 with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and default behavior. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's low complexity (simple conversion with 3 parameters) and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning the return format or potential errors, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the default for the optional 'time' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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's purpose: converting datetime between timezones with a default behavior for missing time. It specifies the verb 'convert' and resource 'datetime', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_time_by_timezone or list_timezones, which prevents a perfect score.

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 usage by stating 'If no time is provided the current time is used,' which suggests when to omit the optional parameter. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_time_by_timezone or get_time_by_ip, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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 describes the basic function but lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for invalid IP addresses), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if geolocation fails. The description does not contradict annotations, but it is insufficient for a tool that performs external lookups without annotation support.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get the current date and time') and includes essential context ('based on the geolocation of an IP address'), making it easy to understand quickly.

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's moderate complexity (involving IP-based geolocation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but does not cover important aspects like return format, error conditions, or performance implications. With no annotations to supplement, the description should provide more completeness for reliable agent use.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'ip' parameter clearly documented as 'IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up.' The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'geolocation of an IP address,' which contextualizes the parameter but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current date and time'), and specifies the mechanism ('based on the geolocation of an IP address'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_time_by_timezone' or 'convert_time', which also retrieve time-related data but use different inputs (timezone vs. IP address).

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 usage context by specifying that it retrieves time 'based on the geolocation of an IP address,' suggesting it should be used when an IP address is available instead of a timezone. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_time_by_timezone' or 'convert_time,' nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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 states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details such as error handling (e.g., for invalid timezone strings), response format (e.g., ISO 8601), or performance characteristics (e.g., latency). The description does not contradict annotations, but it is minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose with clear examples. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context but lacks details on output format or error handling, which could be helpful for an agent to use the tool correctly without trial and error.

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%, with the parameter 'timezone' fully documented in the schema as 'IANA timezone string, e.g. "America/New_York"'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as validation rules or example usage, so it meets 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 specific action ('Get the current date and time') and resource ('in a specific IANA timezone'), with examples that distinguish it from siblings like 'convert_time' (which implies conversion between timezones) and 'get_time_by_ip' (which uses IP-based location). The verb 'Get' is precise and 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 description implies usage by specifying 'in a specific IANA timezone' and providing examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_time_by_ip' (for IP-based time) or 'list_timezones' (for listing available timezones). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('List all'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but does not detail aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description adds basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('List all IANA timezone strings') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy to understand quickly.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but does not address potential complexities like response structure or usage constraints, which could be helpful for an AI agent despite the lack of structured fields.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 specific action ('List all') and resource ('IANA timezone strings available from WorldTimeAPI'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like convert_time, get_time_by_ip, and get_time_by_timezone. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or 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?

The description implies usage by specifying the resource (timezone strings from WorldTimeAPI), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_time_by_timezone. No exclusions or clear contextual guidance are provided, leaving some ambiguity about optimal use cases.

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