timer_countdown_remaining

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions the return shape but does not state whether the operation is read-only (likely, but not explicit), what happens if the timer does not exist, or if there are any side effects. The minimal description leaves important behavioral 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: one sentence with a hint of output structure, front-loaded with '[timer]'. No extraneous information, every word earns its place.

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 there is an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it lacks context about error handling, prerequisites (e.g., timer must exist), and how to find timer names. It is adequate for a simple get operation but not fully complete.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter: 'name' (required string). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain what the name refers to or any constraints. The parameter is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description fails to add value.

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: 'Get remaining countdown time.' It specifies it returns remaining_ms, remaining_s, and expired. The prefix '[timer]' groups it with timer tools, and it is distinct from siblings like timer_countdown_list and timer_countdown_start.

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 this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it is for checking the remaining time of a countdown timer started via timer_countdown_start, but no exclusion criteria or alternate tool suggestions are provided.

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