Time & Astronomy

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the data source (US Naval Observatory) but omits details like network dependence, latency, or side effects. The description does not confirm it is a read-only 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the key outputs, and contains no extraneous information. Every word is necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format or structure. It only lists the types of times returned but does not specify whether they are represented as strings, timestamps, or objects, leaving a gap for an AI agent.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 returns 'sunrise, sunset, and twilight times' and 'moonrise and moonset', specifying the data source as 'US Naval Observatory data'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_current_time' and 'get_moon_phases', which focus on different astronomical aspects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_current_time' or 'get_moon_phases'. The description does not mention any prerequisites or conditions.

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, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the returned fields but does not mention data freshness, caching, rate limits, or authorization requirements. Basic transparency but missing some details.

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 followed by a clear list of returned fields. No wasted words, front-loaded with action and resource. Very concise.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return fields. However, it does not explain error cases (e.g., invalid timezone) or behavior like daylight saving transitions. Mostly complete for a simple tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates that timezone expects IANA names but does not provide additional syntax or examples. Adequate but not enhancing.

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 action ('Get the current time') and the resource ('in any timezone'), and lists the specific return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_astronomy, get_moon_phases) by focusing on time data.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. While siblings are astronomy-related, the description does not mention alternatives or context-specific recommendations. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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 transparently states the data source (US Naval Observatory) and the type of data returned (moon phases and illumination). It does not disclose rate limits or authentication needs, but the information is sufficient for a read-only lookup tool.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the main action ('Get upcoming moon phases') and includes relevant specifics. Minor improvement could be structural separation of phases and illumination.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should hint at return format. It mentions returning phases and illumination but not structure (e.g., list of objects, dates). For a simple tool, it is adequate but could be more complete by stating expected output format.

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 both 'date' and 'count' parameters described in the schema. The description adds only the source context ('from the US Naval Observatory'), not additional parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies getting upcoming moon phases (listing four types) and current illumination percentage from a known source (US Naval Observatory). This clearly defines the tool's action and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_astronomy (broader) and get_current_time (time-only).

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 for astronomy or calendar planning but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide conditions to avoid. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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