ACTION_GET_TIME

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

With no annotations, the description meaningfully discloses the output variables, variable-snapshot JSON return format, ${var} interpolation, and the potentially error-prone Sunday-based weekday numbering. It does not explicitly discuss timezone behavior or state that the operation is side-effect free, but it covers the important behavior of this simple read-oriented 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 front-loaded with the operation and then moves efficiently through outputs, compatibility details, and invocation behavior. The output enumeration is dense but justified by the absence of an output schema; the duplicated “。。” punctuation is a minor polish issue.

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?

For a simple tool with no required parameters, the combined definition covers invocation defaults and error handling through the schema while the description supplies output names, return structure, and interoperability semantics. Enumerating the outputs is especially valuable because no output schema is provided.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds value beyond that baseline by explaining that string parameters support ${var} interpolation, a cross-cutting invocation behavior absent from the individual parameter schemas.

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 opening “获取当前时间及年月日时分秒” clearly states that the tool retrieves the current time and its date/time components. It does not differentiate its purpose from siblings such as ACTION_WAIT_UNTIL_TIME; the ACTION_PARSE_DATETIME reference concerns weekday encoding rather than tool selection.

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?

Retrieving the current time provides an implied use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over parsing, waiting, or other time-related actions. The sibling cross-reference is still useful because it prevents incorrect weekday interpretation.

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