time_tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying it '获取当前时间' (gets current time) and showing example outputs (JSON/text). It doesn't contradict annotations - getting current time aligns with read-only, non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or edge cases.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences stating purpose and two examples. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The Chinese examples are clear but could be slightly more structured. Every sentence serves a purpose - no redundant information.

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 low complexity (simple time retrieval), rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality and provides examples. For a read-only utility tool with good structured data, this description provides adequate context.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description provides two examples that illustrate parameter combinations but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already explains. The examples show practical usage but don't clarify parameter interactions or constraints not in the schema.

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: '获取当前时间，支持多种格式输出' (get current time, supports multiple output formats). It specifies the verb (get/获取) and resource (current time/当前时间), and distinguishes it from sibling tools which are mostly file/process management tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential time-related siblings (none exist in the provided list).

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 two usage examples but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison with other tools. The examples show parameter usage but don't establish context for tool selection.

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