aleostudio MCP Server

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 explains the tool returns current date/time with configurable format, which covers the basic behavior, but doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or whether it requires external resources. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, and every sentence serves a purpose. It could be slightly more concise by combining some elements, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description provides adequate context. It explains parameters thoroughly and states the return purpose, though it could benefit from more behavioral context about edge cases or limitations.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains what 'timezone_offset' represents (UTC offset in hours with valid range) and what 'format_type' controls (output format with specific options like iso, human, unix, components), providing crucial semantic context that the schema alone lacks.

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/time'), plus it distinguishes its functionality from siblings by specifying configurable format options. It goes beyond a simple tautology by explaining what the tool actually does.

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 alternatives like 'calculate' or other siblings. It mentions configurable format but doesn't specify scenarios where one format would be preferred over another or when this tool is appropriate compared to other date/time operations.

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