format_format_duration

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

Without annotations, the description covers the basic behavior (conversion to human string) and the verbose parameter effect. However, it omits details like handling of negative values, zero, large numbers, or decimal seconds.

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 that convey purpose, an example, and a parameter option. Every word contributes 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?

The description provides a clear example and explains the key parameter. However, it does not mention the return type (string) explicitly, though the output schema exists. For a simple formatting tool, the coverage is adequate.

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% description coverage (no descriptions for parameters). The description clarifies the 'seconds' parameter (via example) and explains the 'verbose' parameter (full words versus abbreviations). This adds significant meaning beyond schema types alone.

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 explicitly states the tool formats seconds into a human-readable string with an example (3661 → '1h 1m 1s'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling format tools by specifying the input and output format.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other format tools (e.g., format_format_bytes). It only explains the behavior but lacks context for selection.

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